|
Post by pknaz on Jan 14, 2018 2:34:50 GMT -5
Great news that it will be shipped by end of March. Just speculation here, but that means there may be a few out in the wild right now for testing. Exciting stuff!! I'm currently building a new theater room and have been working on it a lot during weekends and nights. Wife doesn't always appreciate the time I have been spending building the room. So last night I thought to myself I could stop working as much on building my theater room because without the RMC-1, I would have no way to drive the 9.1.6 setup. But now I see I'm going to have to keep working so the RMC-1 has a home around March or April. Deewan from HTGuide? I'm in the same boat, I'm building out my 9.4.6 possibly 9.8.6 right now.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Jan 14, 2018 9:40:32 GMT -5
Great, but now the problem will be coming up with $3000 smackers by then (have 40% discount).
|
|
|
Post by deewan on Jan 14, 2018 9:53:55 GMT -5
pknaz. Yes, I also use the same screen name over on HTGuide.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jan 25, 2018 14:38:58 GMT -5
Presuming the RMC-1 will indeed be capable of 9.1.6...
I have 2 subs positioned between L/C and C/R respectively. It's a wide room which will allow aural benefit from having the full fat 9 ear level speakers that the RMC-1 allows.
Which leaves the option of 9.2.4 or 9.1.6. The latter means using an alternative method for dialing in and summing both subs before adding the pair to the mono sub output.
Any suggestions or opinions? Or can I just connect both subs in one output as they are in symmetry and equidistant to MLP. I am using a Behringer iNuke 6000 amp which can split one input over 2 outputs in mono mode.
Thanks.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,230
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 25, 2018 14:45:12 GMT -5
Presuming the RMC-1 will indeed be capable of 9.1.6... I have 2 subs positioned between L/C and C/R respectively. It's a wide room which will allow aural benefit from having the full fat 9 ear level speakers that the RMC-1 allows. Which leaves the option of 9.2.4 or 9.1.6. The latter means using an alternative method for dialing in and summing both subs before adding the pair to the mono sub output. Any suggestions or opinions? Or can I just connect both subs in one output as they are in symmetry and equidistant to MLP. I am using a Behringer iNuke 6000 amp which can split one input over 2 outputs in mono mode. Thanks. Seems Like a plan to me! 👍🎶
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jan 25, 2018 15:04:10 GMT -5
The ceiling speakers are DIY Sound Group using the 10" Beta10CX coaxial. Building 6 rather than 4 would mean building smaller cabinets and without passive radiators. These will need to be crossed @ 80 Hz. With the larger cabinets I would have the option to go a lot lower.
I have built a pair with passive radiators used in my wife's office as her stereo, no subs used. They are awesome. Which is why I was keen to use the same subscription...
|
|
|
Post by bblv on Jan 26, 2018 3:58:17 GMT -5
Sounds like our theater plans are very similar. I just built six 0.7 cu ft sealed boxes for Volt 10LX in-ceiling Atmos speakers and plan on picking up the RMC-1 to run a 9.1.6 setup (all DIYSG speakers). I plan on having 6-8 subs grouped in three different positions in my room and am going to use a MiniDSP to process them. FWIW I traded several emails with Erich regarding this exact application for Volt 10LX Atmos duty, as I too obviously want to get the most out of them. He reiterated that they won't be receiving much low frequency information to warrant a larger sealed box than about 0.7 cu ft or a ported box, so I caution you overthinking/overbuilding the enclosures for Atmos. Of course, I haven't heard my finished setup yet (and won't for about 3 months), so take it for what's it's worth
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jan 26, 2018 12:43:10 GMT -5
From the Dolby Guidelines:
Overhead speaker characteristics Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers.
Thou shall not compromise!
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 26, 2018 13:02:59 GMT -5
From the Dolby Guidelines: Overhead speaker characteristicsDolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Thou shall not compromise! I can't wait to see pictures of your pad when it's all done. You have put a lot of effort into it and I'm sure it will be first class.
|
|
|
Post by pknaz on Jan 26, 2018 15:18:47 GMT -5
I'm pretty confident I couldn't tell where sub 80hz is coming from, let alone by ceiling - not sure I'd want those kinds of vibrations above my head, either I'll save the sub 80hz stuff for.....the subs.
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Jan 26, 2018 23:20:03 GMT -5
I'm pretty confident I couldn't tell where sub 80hz is coming from, let alone by ceiling - not sure I'd want those kinds of vibrations above my head, either I'll save the sub 80hz stuff for.....the subs. Exactly ; the guidelines on full range atmos ceilings could well apply to smaller 2 ways bed channel speakers as well as reduced frequency response bed channel surround ones . They didn't elaborate if they meant 3 ways say .. This is something that I will take notice off vvv
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 27, 2018 1:08:10 GMT -5
From the Dolby Guidelines: Overhead speaker characteristicsDolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the listener-level speakers. Thou shall not compromise! How come they don't follow that in their theatre installations I have checked out 3 genuine Dolby Atmos Commercial Theatre installations that are certified (and designed) by Dolby themselves and none of them have overhead speakers capable of much below 60 hz. Maybe their definition of "full range" means "full range for the speakers other than the sub woofers". Maybe a mission for the Emotiva espionage team, find a Dolby Commercial installation that has sub woofers in the ceiling Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by enricoclaudio on Jan 27, 2018 10:35:44 GMT -5
Presuming the RMC-1 will indeed be capable of 9.1.6... I have 2 subs positioned between L/C and C/R respectively. It's a wide room which will allow aural benefit from having the full fat 9 ear level speakers that the RMC-1 allows. Which leaves the option of 9.2.4 or 9.1.6. The latter means using an alternative method for dialing in and summing both subs before adding the pair to the mono sub output. Any suggestions or opinions? Or can I just connect both subs in one output as they are in symmetry and equidistant to MLP. I am using a Behringer iNuke 6000 amp which can split one input over 2 outputs in mono mode. Thanks. Get a miniDSP 2x4 HD and you will be done. You can have 4 x subwoofers getting signal from the mono XLR out on the RMC-1. That's the way I'm doing with my pair of Rythmik Audio F12SEs and the XMC-1. I know the miniDSP 2x4 HD is more expensive than the regular 2x4 or the 2x4 balanced but with 2x4 HD you get 10 PEQ bands per input (6 PEQ bands for the 2x4), 80ms delay per channel (7.5ms on the 2x4), 4 presets (no presets on the 2x4), IR remote (no IR remote on the 2x4) and it's upgradable to DDRC-24 with Dirac for $245 (Dirac License)
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,262
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Jan 30, 2018 16:55:09 GMT -5
Enrico, That was indeed also my idea to get a miniDSP. Didn't know these are also upgradable to Dirac. Makes it a no-brainer. For the rest: No doubt Dolby does include the use of subwoofers to get "full range" out of the top speakers. As a matter of fact, they suggest hanging a sub high in both rear corners. But I am sceptic about small speakers actually being capable of producing frequencies as low as 80 Hz with authority! Usually, the specs of smaller (sealed) speakers are "frequency range" down to 80 Hz (+/- 3 dB). This means you get "some" sound @80hz, correct? At the same time, you should be able to dial in MORE low frequency (house curve). So I say no thanks to small speakers, I am aiming for a lower frequency capability to be sure I have enough play. Something different to end: There's a French guy frequently posting on AVS, Hugo S, who tested the various steps from 7.2.4 over 9.2.4 (added wides) to 9.2.6 and more (after also testing more modest variations of Atmos earlier). His conclusion is that adding wides (9.2.4) is a subtle but very noticeable upgrade as it widens the soundstage (duh) as if the screen went from 16/9 to widescreen. Nice. But adding the top middle pair for 9.2.6 however is ever more subtle to the point where it's more difficult to notice the difference. But he says it could be because of the type of tracks he used. Mmm... For those who understand French: Dolby Atmos tests using the Trinnov
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,945
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 30, 2018 18:10:24 GMT -5
You need to be careful to avoid confusing frequency response and output capability. A frequency response of +/-3 dB is quite respectable for a speaker... so that little speaker that has a response down to 80 Hz really is flat to 80 Hz. Having a flat frequency response means that the amount of sound it will deliver at 80 Hz will be properly balanced with what it delivers at other frequencies. So, as long as you play it at low volume, it will sound just fine. However, if it has a small woofer, what will be limited is the MAXIMUM TOTAL AMOUNT OF OUTPUT at low frequencies. So, at low volume, it will sound very nice, and very accurate. But, as you start playing it louder and louder, it's limited output will cause it to distort at lower frequencies. However, rather than lacking in bass, it will have plenty of bass; however, its bass output will start to distort if you play it too loudly. The lower you go in frequency, the more air you have to move to reach a given output level. Because of this, assuming no other limitations, and a similar range of motion, a large speaker can move more air than a small speaker, and so play louder at lower frequencies before overloading. So, for example, you could make a 5" subwoofer that would play flat down to 30 Hz........ and sound very nice....... it just wouldn't be able to play 30 Hz very loudly. Note, however, that the relationship isn't linear..... There are in fact plenty of 5" speakers that can make a massive amount of output at 80 Hz, and play very loudly. Enrico, That was indeed also my idea to get a miniDSP. Didn't know these are also upgradable to Dirac. Makes it a no-brainer. For the rest: No doubt Dolby does include the use of subwoofers to get "full range" out of the top speakers. As a matter of fact, they suggest hanging a sub high in both rear corners. But I am sceptic about small speakers actually being capable of producing frequencies as low as 80 Hz with authority! Usually, the specs of smaller (sealed) speakers are "frequency range" down to 80 Hz (+/- 3 dB). This means you get "some" sound @80hz, correct? At the same time, you should be able to dial in MORE low frequency (house curve). So I say no thanks to small speakers, I am aiming for a lower frequency capability to be sure I have enough play. Something different to end: There's a French guy frequently posting on AVS, Hugo S, who tested the various steps from 7.2.4 over 9.2.4 (added wides) to 9.2.6 and more (after also testing more modest variations of Atmos earlier). His conclusion is that adding wides (9.2.4) is a subtle but very noticeable upgrade as it widens the soundstage (duh) as if the screen went from 16/9 to widescreen. Nice. But adding the top middle pair for 9.2.6 however is ever more subtle to the point where it's more difficult to notice the difference. But he says it could be because of the type of tracks he used. Mmm... For those who understand French: Dolby Atmos tests using the Trinnov
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 30, 2018 22:25:35 GMT -5
Something different to end: There's a French guy frequently posting on AVS, Hugo S, who tested the various steps from 7.2.4 over 9.2.4 (added wides) to 9.2.6 and more (after also testing more modest variations of Atmos earlier). His conclusion is that adding wides (9.2.4) is a subtle but very noticeable upgrade as it widens the soundstage (duh) as if the screen went from 16/9 to widescreen. Nice. But adding the top middle pair for 9.2.6 however is ever more subtle to the point where it's more difficult to notice the difference. But he says it could be because of the type of tracks he used. Mmm... Pretty much the same conclusion we reached with 5.1.2 versus 5.1.4, the difference was so small we deemed it not worthwhile. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Jan 31, 2018 9:18:27 GMT -5
Something different to end: There's a French guy frequently posting on AVS, Hugo S, who tested the various steps from 7.2.4 over 9.2.4 (added wides) to 9.2.6 and more (after also testing more modest variations of Atmos earlier). His conclusion is that adding wides (9.2.4) is a subtle but very noticeable upgrade as it widens the soundstage (duh) as if the screen went from 16/9 to widescreen. Nice. But adding the top middle pair for 9.2.6 however is ever more subtle to the point where it's more difficult to notice the difference. But he says it could be because of the type of tracks he used. Mmm... Pretty much the same conclusion we reached with 5.1.2 versus 5.1.4, the difference was so small we deemed it not worthwhile. Cheers Gary while i agree with almost all your findings....this one i disagree BIG time....the addition os 2 overhead speakers to 4 speakers...GREATLY improves the pans from back to front and front to back.....as well as the directional cues that are focused in the upper corners of the theater/room I would go as far to say 5.x.4 > 7.x.2 and easily so... 6 speakers overhead is ONLY recommended imho to those rooms that are very long and have multiple rows of seating
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 31, 2018 13:30:21 GMT -5
Pretty much the same conclusion we reached with 5.1.2 versus 5.1.4, the difference was so small we deemed it not worthwhile. while i agree with almost all your findings....this one i disagree BIG time....the addition os 2 overhead speakers to 4 speakers...GREATLY improves the pans from back to front and front to back.....as well as the directional cues that are focused in the upper corners of the theater/room I would go as far to say 5.x.4 > 7.x.2 and easily so... 6 speakers overhead is ONLY recommended imho to those rooms that are very long and have multiple rows of seating Keeping in mind that room was previously equipped with a 5.1 system because there wasn't any benefit from a 7.1 system because of the room size and lay out. Our similar conclusion was that the room was too small for 4 ceiling speakers and that they had to be so close together that there wasn't sufficient separation. We decided, after much testing, that 2 ceiling speakers along the room was the best configuration. Simple analogy, if a room is too small for 6 ceiling speakers then an even smaller room may be too small for 4 ceiling speakers. In comparison my listening area is a little wider, but of similar depth, so I'm most likely going with 2 ceiling speakers across the room, which is one of the recommended Atmos lay outs. My belief is that I will get 95% of the benefit for 25% of cost as I have 2 spare channels in the XPA-5. So all I need to buy is the 2 ceiling speakers, which I have already spec'd with my speaker manufacturer to match the other 5. I have no doubt that 4 ceiling speakers in my friends room would have given next to zero benefit. In my case the benefit (going from 2 to 4) may well be too small to justify the additional cost. Which doesn't mean I won't try it, when I have a processor that can handle Atmos/DTSX and 4K of course Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by musicfan on Jan 31, 2018 14:22:48 GMT -5
another great explanation of your findings and thought process....
if only others here had the same thinking!
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Jan 31, 2018 15:52:37 GMT -5
I am going to install 6 speakers now just to be covered, even though I'll only have processing power for 4.
Three reasons.
1. 7.3.6 is the most my room (and wife) will ever accommodate.
2. I believe 7.2.6 will become the new "normal" "defacto" standard before too long. Anything over that is going to be for the super niche and rich.
3. While I'm buying and installing ceiling speakers, I'd like them all to match. Installing 4 now when I could potentially handle 6 in the future doens't make much sense to me. That could lead to 2 oddball speakers and the original 4 not being spaced out properly.
|
|