|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on May 8, 2018 14:39:13 GMT -5
By the way, this reminds me of a question I had regarding "cheating" a 7.1 setup. Currently I have a 5.1 setup and I really don't have the flexibility in my apartment to mount speakers behind my couch in my living room (nor Atmos Speakers on the ceiling, but that's a different issue). The surround speakers I have now are the old Emotiva ERD-1 dipole speakers. Looking at them, I was wondering if anyone makes surround/rear speakers that have two speaker wire inputs which might allow the rearward facing speakers to handle the "Rears", bouncing off the rear wall, and the forward facing the "Surrounds" for a semi-fake 7.1 setup. Something similar in concept to the "Atmos" speakers that people place on top of their Left/Right Speakers to bounce off the ceiling for a semi-fake 7.1."2" setup ... Or is this a hopelessly bad idea? Casey I like the idea, and think it’s worth a try. I haven’t seen speakers like you describe, but since you already have the ERD’s mounted, how about modifying them with another set of binding posts? (a good reason to use bi-wire cable even if you’re not bi-wiring). |
|
|
|
Post by andersmi on May 9, 2018 1:18:39 GMT -5
I read that post but I’m skeptical Atmos can actually simulate a better diffuse experience with monopoles than dipoles but that would be great if the case. I’ve only read that you’d have to fill a room with a lot of monopoles for the right effect like a movie theater but maybe their is something else that just hasn’t been implemented yet.. Which would surprise me because that would of been beneficial for last generation’s Dolby HD processors so why would it only be showing up now? I guess it will take some testing to find out what solution fits your needs best. Another thing I have seen some people talk about is height speakers, where they add an extra diget to the setup, eg. 9.1.4.2 where the last diget is the height speakers. I had the idea of making a 9.1.6 setup in my room, but I was thinking that an alternativ could be a 7.1.4.4 setup where I move one the side speakers and one set of the ceiling speakers to the front and back like this.  My room is only 3,5 x 4 meters so in a 9.1.6 setup there wouldn't be very far between each speaker so a 7.1.4.4 setup would spread them a little more, but will the RMC-1 or any other amplifier support this, and how would it compare to the 9.1.6 setup? |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on May 9, 2018 8:37:54 GMT -5
I'm a little confused with your comment..... In a 9.1.6 system..... the THIRD digit is the height speakers. (Perhaps that fourth digit is referring to "front wides" - although I haven't seen it written that way.) I read that post but I’m skeptical Atmos can actually simulate a better diffuse experience with monopoles than dipoles but that would be great if the case. I’ve only read that you’d have to fill a room with a lot of monopoles for the right effect like a movie theater but maybe their is something else that just hasn’t been implemented yet.. Which would surprise me because that would of been beneficial for last generation’s Dolby HD processors so why would it only be showing up now? I guess it will take some testing to find out what solution fits your needs best. Another thing I have seen some people talk about is height speakers, where they add an extra diget to the setup, eg. 9.1.4.2 where the last diget is the height speakers. I had the idea of making a 9.1.6 setup in my room, but I was thinking that an alternativ could be a 7.1.4.4 setup where I move one the side speakers and one set of the ceiling speakers to the front and back like this. My room is only 3,5 x 4 meters so in a 9.1.6 setup there wouldn't be very far between each speaker so a 7.1.4.4 setup would spread them a little more, but will the RMC-1 or any other amplifier support this, and how would it compare to the 9.1.6 setup? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,247
|
Post by KeithL on May 9, 2018 8:45:41 GMT -5
In general Dolby recommends monopole speakers for Atmos. However, it's NOT a matter of "the monopole speakers diffusing sound". Bipoles are sort of in-between (a "bipole" is really just a monopole with very wide dispersion.) In the old days, dipoles were often recommended because they diffused the sound, which made it difficult to localize, which seemed like a good idea with only a few surround speakers (especially in a large room). In those days we would have said that "the surrounds provide ambience but aren't really intended for point sources". With Atmos, the idea is for the system to localize each sound as it sees fit.... and diffuse each - or not - as it sees fit.... so the goal is NOT to have the speakers diffuse the sound for you. (Although I would still recommend dipoles in situations where the speakers are too localized, for example, in a narrow room, if your surrounds are very close to the side of the heads of your center-row listeners.) For flexibility, or variety, you might consider our Airmotiv E2's. On the Airmotiv E2's, you can individually set each tweeter in or out of phase, for a variety of different "levels of diffusion". (With both tweeters in phase with the midrange you have a bipole; inverting both tweeters gives a sort of extreme dipole effect.) Obviously, in the end, use whatever sounds best to you, in your room....... You bring up a good point that typically gets hidden under the rug. I've read people basically saying dipoles are obsolete, to throw them away. But then others say they actually prefer them still, even when using atmos. My speakers are bipolar, and they aren't going anywhere just because of Atmos. Certainly not in the garbage, or even lower down on the wall. First of all, its going to be a long while from now until Atmos or DTS-X is the norm, used for regular TV. And we watch a lot of regular TV. So I'm not going the sacrfice the sound of the majority of our watching just to have the perfect ultimate Atmos. Same goes for my hundreds of blurays with Dolby True or DTS Master. To really make this work, we'd all need two sets of speakers. One set dipole and one set direct. For example, at my house, I would need to put the dipoles up the wall and the directs inwall. And then need more amps, and some sort of switcher. But thats crazy for me. Second, I hoping my bipoles are a good mix inbetween. Maybe not super duper perfect for either regular TV, Dolby True, or Atmos, but a good compromise. Gotta go. Be back later for more reasons...... This guy says that an Atmos amplifier will use the monopol speakers to diffuse sound like a bipolar or dipole speaker. Read post #407163 www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php/topics/406839/3 |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 9, 2018 8:56:55 GMT -5
Welcome to the word of multiple speakers, It has been escalating over time. When stereo first came in I used to sit between two AM radios thinking I was actually listening to stereo. Later I used the Dynaco matrix procedure to derive a center channel. I bypassed the quad era that used four discrete channels. Then matrixed Dolby Pro Logic brought center and side surrounds suggested to be mounted high on the wall behind you. The diffuse sound of dipole speakers was useful then because the surrounds mostly contained ambient sound. Then digital Dolby Surround came and sent discrete sound to all 5 channels. I used the matrix method again to develope a 6th back channel. Now hemispherical immersive sound has been brought into the picture with 3 major competing codecs - Dolby Atmos, DTS-X. and Auro. Each suggests a different speaker placement. This can make you want to tear your hair out. I prefer to concentrate on following Dolby Home Atmos suggestions for placement. The Dolby Surround upmixer does a good job on DTS material. The first Atmos home systems provided for 11 channels (disregarding the super expensive Trinnov).
Wanting more channels, some have again dragged out the old matrix trick and derived wides, heights, and even top middles (but a matrixed in between sound from two channels destroys the x,y,z positioning accuracy of Atmos). However, whatever pleases you is all that matters, but some setups like sitting between two AM radios isn't going to cut it anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by andersmi on May 9, 2018 12:12:59 GMT -5
I'm a little confused with your comment..... In a 9.1.6 system..... the THIRD digit is the height speakers. (Perhaps that fourth digit is referring to "front wides" - although I haven't seen it written that way.) I guess it will take some testing to find out what solution fits your needs best. Another thing I have seen some people talk about is height speakers, where they add an extra diget to the setup, eg. 9.1.4.2 where the last diget is the height speakers. I had the idea of making a 9.1.6 setup in my room, but I was thinking that an alternativ could be a 7.1.4.4 setup where I move one the side speakers and one set of the ceiling speakers to the front and back like this. My room is only 3,5 x 4 meters so in a 9.1.6 setup there wouldn't be very far between each speaker so a 7.1.4.4 setup would spread them a little more, but will the RMC-1 or any other amplifier support this, and how would it compare to the 9.1.6 setup? The guy from this forum in post 407163 writes it that way, and I think I have seen it another time also. But it is an old post from around when Atmos was released, so it could because it was very new at that time. www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php/topics/407163/3But does Atmos support height speakers and is better to choose ceiling speakers over height speakers if you have to choose? |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 9, 2018 13:01:18 GMT -5
I'm a little confused with your comment..... In a 9.1.6 system..... the THIRD digit is the height speakers. (Perhaps that fourth digit is referring to "front wides" - although I haven't seen it written that way.) The guy from this forum in post 407163 writes it that way, and I think I have seen it another time also. But it is an old post from around when Atmos was released, so it could because it was very new at that time. www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php/topics/407163/3But does Atmos support height speakers and is better to choose ceiling speakers over height speakers if you have to choose? That post was referring to an Auro 3D setup. Auro makes reference to ear level, height level, and top speakers. Atmos does not support height or wide speakers as channels, but can make use of them for object oriented sound. |
|
|
|
Post by andersmi on May 9, 2018 13:02:33 GMT -5
In general Dolby recommends monopole speakers for Atmos. However, it's NOT a matter of "the monopole speakers diffusing sound". Bipoles are sort of in-between (a "bipole" is really just a monopole with very wide dispersion.) In the old days, dipoles were often recommended because they diffused the sound, which made it difficult to localize, which seemed like a good idea with only a few surround speakers (especially in a large room). In those days we would have said that "the surrounds provide ambience but aren't really intended for point sources". With Atmos, the idea is for the system to localize each sound as it sees fit.... and diffuse each - or not - as it sees fit.... so the goal is NOT to have the speakers diffuse the sound for you. (Although I would still recommend dipoles in situations where the speakers are too localized, for example, in a narrow room, if your surrounds are very close to the side of the heads of your center-row listeners.) For flexibility, or variety, you might consider our Airmotiv E2's. On the Airmotiv E2's, you can individually set each tweeter in or out of phase, for a variety of different "levels of diffusion". (With both tweeters in phase with the midrange you have a bipole; inverting both tweeters gives a sort of extreme dipole effect.) Obviously, in the end, use whatever sounds best to you, in your room....... Just checked up on other users with Atmos in small rooms and from that I should be fine with only monopole speakers. My room is only 3,7 x 4 meters but my MLP is 1,5 meter from back wall and 2 meters from side wall so I am able to follow the recommended speaker position in an Atmos setup for all speakers. Time will tell if that is correct  |
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on May 9, 2018 13:08:29 GMT -5
monopoles.....will 100% work
my room is 11x16x7.5 I use monos and it is wonderful
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 9, 2018 13:34:34 GMT -5
I still think technically Atmos can’t be defined as channel based at all unless you have a non supported pre pro then it’s automatically read as a fixed channel system because it’s bed layers are highly related, but in an Atmos system what would be utilized as channels in a non Atmos system will automatically be expanded to include the intended speaker so channels isn’t the right word I don’t think. All speakers from how I thought Keith explained it will always have the object sounds and the appropriate diffuse material. I’d have to have the RMC-1 to verify though so it sounds like end of summer at least before I can be 100% sure I understand what I’m reading correctly. Meaning that if you did want to call Atmos channel oriented even though I think it’s misleading the wides along with the other 22 lower speaker options all have the appropriate channel content when fed Atmos. I’m not sure if the height channels have a bedded layer for ambient material but I thought so. Either way if there is the height bedded layer that I think we are loosely associating with channels all the possible 10 height speakers will be able to be fed what they are supposed to from it along with the object audio. Calling anything channels now just seems like it associates itself to channel limits when those limits are 24.1.10 or the limits of the pre pro. All bedded layer material and object audio will play through all 34 speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 9, 2018 14:27:51 GMT -5
Atmos had to be backward compatible with previous Dolby legacy systems, thus the beds (channels) were maintained within the 34 (24 ear level and 10 overhead) possible total number of speakers in the Atmos Home scheme. All speakers can be a source of object sounds and 118 object sounds can be handled at any given time.. Diffuse, as a desirable speaker characteristic, no longer has any meaning with so many speakers able to generate sounds from almost all directions individually or simultaneously. Diffuse designed speakers would only cloud the x,y,z directional source of a sound. WE are presently limited to 11 speakers, 13 speakers, 15 speakers or whatever only due to lack of development of DSP integrated chips with the needed processing power. Trinnov used full computer processors and their own software to handle the whole Atmos gamut whereas less costly prepros use DSP's to do the work. These manufactures are dependent on a few DSP providers for their immersive solutions. Thus Emotiva waits for the 16 channel ADI (the past ones could only do 11 channels) while some others wait on TI (which can presently do 13 channels.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 9, 2018 14:31:52 GMT -5
Atmos had to be backward compatible with previous Dolby legacy systems, thus the beds (channels) were maintained within the 34 (24 ear level and 10 overhead) possible total number of speakers in the Atmos Home scheme. All speakers can be a source of object sounds and 118 object sounds can be handled at any given time.. Diffuse, as a desirable speaker characteristic, no longer has any meaning with so many speakers able to generate sounds from almost all directions individually or simultaneously. Diffuse designed speakers would only cloud the x,y,z directional source of a sound. WE are presently limited to 11 speakers, 13 speakers, 15 speakers or whatever only due to lack of development of DSP integrated chips with the needed processing power. Trinnov used full computer processors and their own software to handle the whole Atmos gamut whereas less costly prepros use DSP's to do the work. These manufactures are dependent on a few DSP providers for their immersive solutions. Thus Emotiva waits for the 16 channel ADI (the past ones could only do 11 channels) while some others wait on TI (which can presently do 13 channels. I guess I’m just confused because I thought you were saying wides were only good for object audio. I understand up mixing may have limitations but I don’t think wides are limited to only objects. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 9, 2018 14:52:35 GMT -5
Atmos home has only 7 beds (channels) FR, FL, C, SR, SL, BR, BL. Commercial Atmos has 9 beds (the extra two are for top left and top right arrays). I'm only talking Atmos because it gets too confusing to talk about all of them together (Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro 3D). Some manufacturers have matrixed the wides from the fronts and the surrounds but this is (in my opinion) detrimental to Atmos sound positioning.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 9, 2018 14:57:00 GMT -5
Atmos home has only 7 beds (channels) FR, FL, C, SR, SL, BR, BL. Commercial Atmos has 9 beds (the extra two are for top left and top right arrays). I'm only talking Atmos because it gets too confusing to talk about all of them together (Atmos, DTS-X, and Auro 3D). Some manufacturers have matrixed the wides from the fronts and the surrounds but this is (in my opinion) detrimental to Atmos sound positioning. This is what I’m talking about. Beds don’t mean channels. Beds mean locational sectors from what I’ve read. So 7 sectors that represent 360 degrees. They can be used as channels for systems that aren’t Atmos. With an Atmos system that 360 degrees is able to be broken down to 24 speakers with 15 degrees of separation. Those speakers then would play whatever content they fall under depending on which of the 7 sectors they lay within. That’s why I’m saying I think calling anything channels is just confusing the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 9, 2018 15:15:46 GMT -5
The only reason expanding your speakers might result in a bad Atmos mix should be because the sound engineer also thought of them as channels and has sounds in the bedded material that should of been made objects so the sounds wouldn’t be spread among so many speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 9, 2018 15:21:43 GMT -5
Look, as far as I can discern, beds and channels are synonymous words. Either I don't understand what you are getting at, or you are at an intellectual level that I can't aspire to understand. So lets just go our own way, I'm sorry I tried to make something clear that I thought I understood. In the spirit of Sargent Schultz "I know nothing"! In parting, a channel or bed is a fixed speaker location that the sound mix engineer can direct whole sale sounds to that do not need additional metadata direction guidance. Happily, but not accidentally, they correspond to the locations established by legacy surround sound codecs.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 9, 2018 15:24:28 GMT -5
Haha I’m not trying to argue. I honestly think this is more along the lines of how it all operates but I’ve done nothing but read and ask questions and get my understanding tweaked from time to time so I may very well be the one that will have to tweak mine again.
|
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 9, 2018 15:28:25 GMT -5
It’s as easy as someone who has heard the 9.1.6 in a demo to chime in and say whether or not they heard content that was not object audio in the wides and that would be enough to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 9, 2018 15:35:46 GMT -5
It’s as easy as someone who has heard the 9.1.6 in a demo to chime in and say whether or not they heard content that was not object audio in the wides and that would be enough to know. Not if the wides were merely matrixed. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on May 9, 2018 15:41:03 GMT -5
There wouldn’t be discrete content in the wides no matter what. I guess I’m saying the only way you could get discrete content and consider it channels is if you limit it to 7. So I’m definitely agreeing you won’t find more than 7 types of material just do we still call it matrixed if it’s the actual intended signal for Atmos for a speaker at the 60 degree angle. That’s why diffuse material goes to the beds and objects are xyz algorithms.
|
|
