New advice regarding XMC-1 Atmos/DTS-X upgrade!!!!!

[AudioHTIT]

Apr 25, 2016 20:51:29 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Apr 25, 2016 18:09:11 GMT -5 Chuck Elliot said:

How did I miss this???

Great news! I would like 7.4 and now this can be done!

According to Dans first post, it will be 5.2.4 or 7.2.2, not 7.2.4.

Chuck could mean actual 7.4 – as in 4 subwoofers. This hasn't been discussed as an option for this upgrade, but as there are now 9 channels, it's possible.

[bolle]

Sounds really great, even if I don´t own a XMC-1. Why? Because a lot of (mayor) brands promised upgrades but never delivered something substantial. These plans for the XMC-1 really sound good. Hats off!

[jmilton]

Apr 25, 2016 21:55:35 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Apr 25, 2016 19:28:46 GMT -5 Dan Laufman said:

Mark,
For the record, I am a Charmin guy!

As we all should be. The care that goes into that product is amazing. And, I speak for the many dedicated scientists and engineers who always strive to make it better, especially for #2.

Thank you for your support!

Mark

I and Chuck Norris use...sandpaper.

[pedrocols]

Two Charmin Rules!!!

[Bonzo]

Apr 25, 2016 23:19:15 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

Apr 25, 2016 20:51:29 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

But I'm thinking 7.2.2 will be great if you place one height speaker centered in front of the seating position, and one behind. ...
Of course the system will need to allow for this placement in its set up, but hopefully that's a non-issue.

I would think someone who currently has Atmos could go into the setup and let us know what options are available? How about it, can anyone with Atmos confirm if a 5.2.2 or 7.2.2 system can be configured as Bonzo describes?

Yes, perhaps @bmoney could answer this for us since we know he has Atmos. From the official Atmos drawings I've seen, they have the .2 configuration with a left & right behind the listening position. But I just don't see how that would be nearly as effective as having 1 channel up front and one behind. You would get much more overhead "pan" and speaker separation that way. Talking about DTS:X instead, what I've read about that is it will supposedly work for any speaker layout. If this is truly the case, then perhaps DTS:X is better suited for what we are discussing here? Hopefully someone who knows more than us will chime in because I'd love to know for sure.

If it is possible to configure this way you could build for a .4 system – two ceiling speakers L/R in front and two L/R behind – then wire them in parallel (front pair together, rear pair together). This will cause the image to appear in the center of the two paralleled speakers – as if you had one (like a phantom center channel). The advantage being that you're all ready for .4 by just pulling the wires apart and hooking them up discretely when you have a .4 processor or receiver. Just an option for those who might be interested in the 16 channel, or other expanded channel unit later, but want to do the ceiling work once, now.

Yeah, that would be a great way to do it! Nice thinking. Then you could easily move up to 4 distinct channels when money allowed. Perfect.

[Bonzo]

Apr 25, 2016 23:59:30 GMT -5 brabs said:

Apr 25, 2016 23:34:15 GMT -5 Lsc said:

That's very interesting! Obviously, I'm putting ceiling speakers up when I get the XMC-1 Atmos upgrade. I may not get the HDMI 2.0 because I won't get a 4K TV for a few years but I'm pretty excited about Atmos at home.

Buying just one pair of Revel Performa3 S206 surround speakers and mounting it centered on my ceiling may work as this speaker has 2 sets of drivers firing at about 130 degrees apart. However, if there is front to back pan on just the left or right, just having one ceiling speaker in the middle may be difficult. Ok, I'm back to 5.2.4 .

Every time I go to my local amazing "Xtreme" theater and watch a movie in Atmos, my 7.1 surround system sounds very "flat". I'm excited to see that this will change with my beloved XMC-1.

Would the side surrounds be used to matrix with the centre top to give the off centre sound you describe?
If that isn't how it works, then 4 speakers or the normal config for 2 may be better.

I'm not sure, that's what we are wondering. See some other posts above.

[monkumonku]

Apr 26, 2016 8:20:34 GMT -5 pedrocols said:

Two Charmin Rules!!!

You must mean Two-Ply Rules.

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2016 8:42:28 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Apr 25, 2016 23:19:15 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

I would think someone who currently has Atmos could go into the setup and let us know what options are available? How about it, can anyone with Atmos confirm if a 5.2.2 or 7.2.2 system can be configured as Bonzo describes?

Yes, perhaps @bmoney could answer this for us since we know he has Atmos. From the official Atmos drawings I've seen, they have the .2 configuration with a left & right behind the listening position. But I just don't see how that would be nearly as effective as having 1 channel up front and one behind. You would get much more overhead "pan" and speaker separation that way. Talking about DTS:X instead, what I've read about that is it will supposedly work for any speaker layout. If this is truly the case, then perhaps DTS:X is better suited for what we are discussing here? Hopefully someone who knows more than us will chime in because I'd love to know for sure.

If it is possible to configure this way you could build for a .4 system – two ceiling speakers L/R in front and two L/R behind – then wire them in parallel (front pair together, rear pair together). This will cause the image to appear in the center of the two paralleled speakers – as if you had one (like a phantom center channel). The advantage being that you're all ready for .4 by just pulling the wires apart and hooking them up discretely when you have a .4 processor or receiver. Just an option for those who might be interested in the 16 channel, or other expanded channel unit later, but want to do the ceiling work once, now.

Yeah, that would be a great way to do it! Nice thinking. Then you could easily move up to 4 distinct channels when money allowed. Perfect.

nope they cant.

if you only have 2 overhead channels they can only be a Left and right...

there is a range they can be for angle from the MLP...so behind the listener isnt totally accurate from 65-100 degrees with 65 being 35 degrees in front of directly overhead...and 100 beng 10 degrees behind directly overhead)

as for the DTS:x what you have read i.e. can fit any speaker setup...its all just marketing BS. it is identical to ATMOS with one MAJOR excpetion...at this time..it is NOT object based....it channel based (still sounds great though)

[Bonzo]

Apr 26, 2016 9:04:42 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

Apr 26, 2016 8:42:28 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Yes, perhaps @bmoney could answer this for us since we know he has Atmos. From the official Atmos drawings I've seen, they have the .2 configuration with a left & right behind the listening position. But I just don't see how that would be nearly as effective as having 1 channel up front and one behind. You would get much more overhead "pan" and speaker separation that way. Talking about DTS:X instead, what I've read about that is it will supposedly work for any speaker layout. If this is truly the case, then perhaps DTS:X is better suited for what we are discussing here? Hopefully someone who knows more than us will chime in because I'd love to know for sure.

Yeah, that would be a great way to do it! Nice thinking. Then you could easily move up to 4 distinct channels when money allowed. Perfect.

nope they cant.

if you only have 2 overhead channels they can only be a Left and right...

there is a range they can be for angle from the MLP...so behind the listener isnt totally accurate from 65-100 degrees with 65 being 35 degrees in front of directly overhead...and 100 beng 10 degrees behind directly overhead)

as for the DTS:x what you have read i.e. can fit any speaker setup...its all just marketing BS. it is identical to ATMOS with one MAJOR excpetion...at this time..it is NOT object based....it channel based (still sounds great though)

So there is no way around right and left at all? No "mono" mode per say? That's a bummer. But you could choose between in front, directly overhead, or behind, by adjusting the angle to tell it.

But I wonder if that's your particular "early adopter" processor and it's capabilities (limited as to what they potentially could be), or an Atmos pitfall. Similar to the 6.1 vs 7.1 thing. I could be remembering incorrectly, but I think it was up the particular processor to allow you to do 6.1 with a true down matrixed mono mode. Some would do it and some would not. Someone please correct me if this is inaccurate. I'm wondering if this isn't just one more thing a person needs to look for when searching out a processor. Just trying to learn here.

So far I have always preferred the sound of DTS solutions over Dolby solutions with my systems. I look forward to the future comparisons.

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2016 9:28:46 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

Apr 26, 2016 9:04:42 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

nope they cant.

if you only have 2 overhead channels they can only be a Left and right...

there is a range they can be for angle from the MLP...so behind the listener isnt totally accurate from 65-100 degrees with 65 being 35 degrees in front of directly overhead...and 100 beng 10 degrees behind directly overhead)

as for the DTS:x what you have read i.e. can fit any speaker setup...its all just marketing BS. it is identical to ATMOS with one MAJOR excpetion...at this time..it is NOT object based....it channel based (still sounds great though)

So there is no way around right and left at all? No "mono" mode per say? That's a bummer. But you could choose between in front, directly overhead, or behind, by adjusting the angle to tell it.

But I wonder if that's your particular "early adopter" processor and it's capabilities (limited as to what they potentially could be), or an Atmos pitfall. Similar to the 6.1 vs 7.1 thing. I could be remembering incorrectly, but I think it was up the particular processor to allow you to do 6.1 with a true down matrixed mono mode. Some would do it and some would not. Someone please correct me if this is inaccurate. I'm wondering if this isn't just one more thing a person needs to look for when searching out a processor. Just trying to learn here.

So far I have always preferred the sound of DTS solutions over Dolby solutions with my systems. I look forward to the future comparisons.

no there is no way around it (its not an option in any avr)...also its not a DOLBY recommended application (as the angles are...which you dont tell the procesor...you just should stay in the guidelines for best practice when selecting 5.2.2 in the speaker configuration...the AVR "knows" the speaker should be at an angle fo 65-100) so any processor that is licensed by dolby to have atmos wont have that option...and my avr is as up to date as they get (7200wa) with exception of the 25k$ ones that allow 9.2.6

also there is zero differnce between dts and Dolby. both codecs sound the same....maybe you preferred how a dts mix was done by the engineer more...but I assure you you werent hearing the codec as the difference

[solarrdadd]

Apr 26, 2016 9:34:15 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

Apr 26, 2016 9:28:46 GMT -5 Bonzo said:

So there is no way around right and left at all? No "mono" mode per say? That's a bummer. But you could choose between in front, directly overhead, or behind, by adjusting the angle to tell it.

But I wonder if that's your particular "early adopter" processor and it's capabilities (limited as to what they potentially could be), or an Atmos pitfall. Similar to the 6.1 vs 7.1 thing. I could be remembering incorrectly, but I think it was up the particular processor to allow you to do 6.1 with a true down matrixed mono mode. Some would do it and some would not. Someone please correct me if this is inaccurate. I'm wondering if this isn't just one more thing a person needs to look for when searching out a processor. Just trying to learn here.

So far I have always preferred the sound of DTS solutions over Dolby solutions with my systems. I look forward to the future comparisons.

no there is no way around it (its not an option in any avr)...also its not a DOLBY recommended application (as the angles are...which you dont tell the procesor...you just should stay in the guidelines for best practice when selecting 5.2.2 in the speaker configuration...the AVR "knows" the speaker should be at an angle fo 65-100) so any processor that is licensed by dolby to have atmos wont have that option...and my avr is as up to date as they get (7200wa) with exception of the 25k$ ones that allow 9.2.6

also there is zero differnce between dts and Dolby. both codecs sound the same....maybe you preferred how a dts mix was done by the engineer more...but I assure you you werent hearing the codec as the difference

they do make ceiling mounted speakers that a single speaker is stereo with left and right tweeters and woofers aimed at about 45 degrees out from each other. it's possible to put two of those directly in line and have your .4 or just one of them and have your .2






I can't speak to how good it sounds, but, it's possible. many speaker makers do make single enclosure ceiling mounted stereo speakers. looks just like a standard single channel but has all the drivers for a L&R built in it and has wiring connections for L&R as well. look into it.

[Bonzo]

Apr 26, 2016 9:34:15 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

its not an option in any avr)

Perhaps now, because

...also its not a DOLBY recommended application (as the angles are...which you dont tell the procesor...you just should stay in the guidelines for best practice when selecting 5.2.2 in the speaker configuration...the AVR "knows" the speaker should be at an angle fo 65-100) so any processor that is licensed by dolby to have atmos wont have that option...

I'd call that a potential pitfall to Atmos in general.

and my avr is as up to date as they get (7200wa) with exception of the 25k$ ones that allow 9.2.6

It is exactly that, but it is still also very much an early adopter product. Whether there will be changes remains to be seen. For example, why would Dolby skip right over 9.2.5? Perhaps the stereo thing means a great deal. They are the experts, not me. But I do question it. Being able to do mono speaker placement variations would certainly make it more flexible for the consumer.

also there is zero differnce between dts and Dolby. both codecs sound the same.......but I assure you you werent hearing the codec as the difference

Well that's been debated by many, but using Dolby PLIIx vs DTS Neo as an example, those most certainly do not sound the same in many circumstances. But I will totally agree that as we go along and better sound is achieved by the newer codecs, it's much harder to tell the differences. The ultimate goal is to make things sound as realistic and genuine as possible. So in the end the goals are the exact same.

maybe you preferred how a dts mix was done by the engineer

And this is absolutely most certainly possible, if not probable, that the mixes are different. The source is the most important component to the final sound. KeithL and I have also discussed that's it's certainly possible that Atmos could even sound different than Dolby True, even with just 5.1 or 7.1, because in theory the 2 mixes could be different. So yeah, perhaps DTS engineers consistently use different rules when making their mixes. I certainly think that's possible, if not probable.

[Bonzo]

Apr 26, 2016 9:54:11 GMT -5 solarrdadd said:

they do make ceiling mounted speakers that a single speaker is stereo with left and right tweeters and woofers aimed at about 45 degrees out from each other. it's possible to put two of those directly in line and have your .4 or just one of them and have your .2

View Attachment

View Attachment


I can't speak to how good it sounds, but, it's possible. many speaker makers do make single enclosure ceiling mounted stereo speakers. looks just like a standard single channel but has all the drivers for a L&R built in it and has wiring connections for L&R as well. look into it.

Great point here.

But yeah, with Dolby not having a 0 or 180 degree angle option, it might not sound optimum.

[Deleted]

no matter how you slice it...that wont sound optimal

and lets not be mistaken here for those that are getting this update

5.2.2 > 5.1/7.1 BUT 5.2.4 > 5.2.2/7.2.2 and by far...so if you're disapointed by atmos with only 2 ceiling channels..this is the cause

I have had only 2 ceiling speakers....in atmos for about a month....then upgraded to 4...and oh man what a difference...then I changed all 4 speakers to high quality speakers...and was blown away all over again

MAJOR TIP HERE: dont skimp on overhead speakers just to have them....you will be disapointed...and not experience what truly atmos is about

[AudioHTIT]

Just so everyone can be on the same page with this placement discussion, here are some screen shots from the Dolby Atmos setup pages.

5.1.2 Top & Side



5.1.4 Top & Side



7.1.2 Top & Side



7.1.4 Top & Side

[rbk123]

Apr 26, 2016 10:13:51 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

I have had only 2 ceiling speakers....in atmos for about a month....then upgraded to 4...and oh man what a difference...then I changed all 4 speakers to high quality speakers...and was blown away all over again

That's interesting. What speakers did you start with and what did you upgrade to?

[AudioHTIT]

Another thought (given the new info from @bmoney) for those who eventually want a .4 system. Wire / install 4 ceilings and now parallel L & R instead of front and back. Now the image should be close to the recommended .2 locations.

[Bonzo]

Apr 26, 2016 10:13:51 GMT -5 @bmoney said:

People sometimes think I'm always downing on Emotiva, but I like to think that most of the time I'm trying to help Emotiva. So let me show here that I can do the same with a big name like Dolby. Not that they haven't considered this and decided against it (for several reasons I'm sure), but I don't think any consumer would say they wouldn't at least like to have the option of doing 7.2.2 mono mode (front/back), or 7.2.5 with a center mono mode. Past those 2, mono modes may become completely useless. But 6.1 was better than 5.1, and I would think the same holds true here. How big a difference will vary strongly per room I'm sure. But I think Dolby is missing the boat by not making 7.2.2 mono mode an option.

[Deleted]

klipsch quintets (strictly to get into atmos as cheap as possible...i already had two and bought two more)...then upgraded t DIYsoundgroup volt6's...night and day...seriously I know that phrase gets thrown around lot...but its one case where its true


also for the above pictures....those are RECOMMENDATIONS...it has been found through extensive at home testing...that if NOT within those specs...the sound will still sound great...in fact I do NOT have my overheadsd on the left side in line with the L mains...due toa soffit being in the way...and it still sounds awesome!

dont feel discouraged if you cant get it all exact....they are just that...recommendations...might not eb optimal but will still get you the added benefit of ATMOS

[Bonzo]

Apr 26, 2016 10:44:07 GMT -5 AudioHTIT said:

Another thought (given the new info from @bmoney) for those who eventually want a .4 system. Wire / install 4 ceilings and now parallel L & R instead of front and back. Now the image should be close to the recommended .2 locations.

Keep thinking!!!