|
Post by freality on Jan 22, 2019 0:01:55 GMT -5
Dolby has released their official 11.x.8 overhead Atmos guide.
Link: Dolby Atmos 11.1.8 Mounted / Overhead Speakers Setup
What's interesting is that it calls for both overhead and wall-mounted heights. Curious to see if they ever release a layout recommendation where all 8 heights are overhead (and no wall-mounts), or if this is it. Here's how I updated my layout from this thread (along with 4x subs in a LRQ (left-right "quartal") configuration - still all vaporware, of course ):
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jan 22, 2019 1:32:37 GMT -5
Dolby has released their official 11.x.8 overhead Atmos guide. Did Dolby also provide information on exactly how/where/when we could get some 11.x.8 Atmos content to play through that layout? Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Jan 22, 2019 12:59:46 GMT -5
I’m curious if you have two different types of speakers timbre matched for the heights are you better off putting the better 4 speakers as the front 4 to better match your front ear levels or would benefits be better to have them around the listener with the center 4 as Goozoo pointed out the far front and rear heights are complained about for lacking activity anyways. Hopefully with this new layout release Dolby is adjusting for better overhead playback on those channels. I guess I have the same question for ear level. Would you prioritize all front speakers with better larger cabinet speakers or would you fill in the wides etc that aren’t the main bed channels with the smaller normally surround speakers and spread out the larger cabinet speakers around the listener in the bed channel positions.. Not sure if Dirac would help or if you’d hear negative effects in panning objects. goozoo
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Jan 25, 2019 16:51:50 GMT -5
Dolby has released their official 11.x.8 overhead Atmos guide.
Link: Dolby Atmos 11.1.8 Mounted / Overhead Speakers Setup
What's interesting is that it calls for both overhead and wall-mounted heights. Curious to see if they ever release a layout recommendation where all 8 heights are overhead (and no wall-mounts), or if this is it. Here's how I updated my layout from this thread (along with 4x subs in a LRQ (left-right "quartal") configuration - still all vaporware, of course ): This Dolby layout seems to conform more towards coexisting with dts:x pro than it’s old literature. Before I thought it was all height speakers should be 45 degrees vertically and the only angles that changed were in orientation to center. Now the two front heights and rear heights are supposed to be 20-30 degrees vertical which is the same height angle as the dts:x pro center and center rear height. It makes me wonder if there is correlation as those may be tasked with that material. And where Atmos has the middle 4 at 45 degrees vertical DTS has a corresponding 8 middle but instead at both 30 and 60 elevations. It seems like there should of been plenty of time now for us to find out what layouts will support both through the entire speaker spectrum. Supposedly DTS has been working on this since at least 2014. Hard to feel confident finishing up the room right now. Pros and cons to the DTS:X will be supposedly most of the current mixes may not be utilizing objects like they should be to take advantage of it all at this point but neural:x type of upmixing for the bed content is supposed to be really effective none the less and should always envelop you with or without discrete objects in the mix. Not sure how much the best material will be tied to future IMAX Enhanced movies but hopefully now that 7.1.4 isn’t expected in the DTS home market mixers will be expected to include objects.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,260
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Feb 6, 2019 10:42:04 GMT -5
Interestingly, the current 9.1.6 (and 7.1.6) layouts from Dolby no longer feature 6 overheads, but only 2 middle overheads combined with front and rear heights. Anyone know what's the reason?
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on Feb 6, 2019 12:21:48 GMT -5
Whoa! That's big change. I see if you save the PDF file it's titled Config-b. Guess we should determine if they actually are suggesting optional layouts and, if so, which is preferred.
Good catch!
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on Feb 6, 2019 14:30:32 GMT -5
I searched the Dolby website and found that they offer 9.1.6 layouts for both "Overhead" (6 overhead speakers) and "Mounted/Overhead" (2 overhead + 4 heights). I haven't found anywhere that suggests one or the other is preferred by Dolby. Looks like more research is required.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 6, 2019 20:29:24 GMT -5
I noticed that is says MOUNTED / OVERHEAD. I'm guessing they aren't done yet, AND, they are trying to come up with more options for people who don't want to put 8 holes in their ceiling.
Their website has never been the best either, and it still isn't. Its hard to find things while on the website, but if you do a google search you can find them. That's a bad website, especially coming from such a nerdy group of folks as Dolby most certainly is.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 6, 2019 20:31:48 GMT -5
Interestingly, the current 9.1.6 (and 7.1.6) layouts from Dolby no longer feature 6 overheads, but only 2 middle overheads combined with front and rear heights. Anyone know what's the reason? Its still there, but their website sucks and makes it hard to find. Do a google search. I remember not being able to find 7.1.6 a year ago from the website, yet if you use google, it's there. By the way, how's the awesome room coming along? Got any pictures?
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on Feb 6, 2019 21:44:09 GMT -5
The two 9.1.6 speaker layouts currently on the Dolby Site. Six Overhead Two Overhead/Four Height Wish I could find more, but this is it. No comments or recommendations from Dolby
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on Feb 6, 2019 22:16:09 GMT -5
Comparing the angles to seating position, my first impression is that the all overhead configuration might be a tad better since the angles are more evenly spaced. Essentially 0 - 45 - 90 - 135 - 180 with overheads vs. 0 - 25 - 90 - 155 - 180 with the overhead/height combination. I assume that the processor could smooth this based on the speaker locations, but having more equal spacing seems logically to provide the best natural panning of the height/overhead objects. Am I thinking wrong?
I'm about to start framing my HT and will need to finalize the speaker locations for wiring soon. Obviously, I'm planning a 9.1.6 system.
Chuck
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,223
|
Post by novisnick on Feb 6, 2019 22:38:32 GMT -5
Airmotiv B1 Pair For hight speakers?
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,260
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Feb 7, 2019 3:20:31 GMT -5
Interestingly, the current 9.1.6 (and 7.1.6) layouts from Dolby no longer feature 6 overheads, but only 2 middle overheads combined with front and rear heights. Anyone know what's the reason? Its still there, but their website sucks and makes it hard to find. Do a google search. I remember not being able to find 7.1.6 a year ago from the website, yet if you use google, it's there. By the way, how's the awesome room coming along? Got any pictures? Thanks! The room itself is kinda finished, we have been concentrating on the rest of the house. I added a 4" high raiser where the sofa's will be put on, was part of the plan but we didn't get to it before. I still have to make the special shape boxes of the DIYSG Titan L+R. Center box is ready but have to add the drivers and crossover. Screen is mounted, projector not yet Obviously the delay of the RMC-1 deliveries to EU is partly responsible for my laziness in this matter...
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,260
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Feb 7, 2019 3:47:35 GMT -5
I searched the Dolby website and found that they offer 9.1.6 layouts for both "Overhead" (6 overhead speakers) and "Mounted/Overhead" (2 overhead + 4 heights). I haven't found anywhere that suggests one or the other is preferred by Dolby. Looks like more research is required. Chuck Thanks. However, for 11.1.8 there is only one guideline for overheads which is FH+TF+TR+RH without the Top Middle speakers. Makes kinda sense I suppose since all the other top layer layouts are symmetrical front to back but I would rather leave out RH instead? I thought about adding FH to my TF/TM/TR layout. I could delete TM. Actually have to build all top speakers. Some ordered parts were never delivered (Dutch supplier) so I never started the build. I am also surprised about the very narrow angle between the Surrounds towards the rear. It's 30° at most (90°/120°/150°) but only 18° if you put Surround 1 @117° and Rear Surround @135° in the most forward position but within the restrictions of the guidelines. I have 35° spacing between Wide/Surround/Rear so I don't see me adding 2 more Surround 1 speakers. Rears are @+/-135°. 150° is no go because of the exit door. Surrounds @100°, Wides @ 65°
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,260
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Feb 8, 2019 16:09:18 GMT -5
With my design in front of me, the Dolby suggested x.x.8 mounted/overhead setup would result in a fairly large gap between TF and TR of 70° (vertical elevation). In my current "overhead" 9.3.6 (TF/TM/TR) the gaps are spaced 4 x 45° (=180°).
As it's communion knowledge we are more sensitive towards sounds in front of us, I stand by my feeling that FH/TF/TM/TR would be better! Using 22,5/22,5/45/45/45° (=180°) vertical spacing in my case. Front Height can be very useful as it creates a very deep soundstage. I tried this years ago when I still had my Yamaha receiver. This was not even discrete source, only upmixing!
From a blanc sheet, I would suggest aiming for 30/30/35/40/45° (=180°) in a FH/TF/TM/TR layout, spacing wider as you go backwards.
Who knows, I might do 9.3.10 one day! But don't hold your breath...
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on Feb 8, 2019 17:45:08 GMT -5
Thanks Erwin. I appreciate your experience. I'm going to crank some numbers to see how to best work this in my theater design.
Cheers!
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on Feb 9, 2019 9:00:54 GMT -5
Erwin, what spacing would you recommend with a 9.x.6 layout? And would that include FH, TF and TR? Using TR instead of RH?
Interested in how your theory would apply with two less speakers.
Thanks,
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 9, 2019 9:50:38 GMT -5
In the end we are also restricted to what formats are offered through Emotiva by Dolby. I’d imagine 10 overheads would be tied to a larger number of ear heights and no one could ever have a properly playing 9.1.10 as there would be gaps between the ear heights I’d imagine. Trinnov seems to be the only machine in town that can map to your own custom arrangement. I’d maybe hold back before cutting holes to see what types of reviews we hear from the new layout supports coming. Because even as of now there are a lot of reports that fh and rh have little to no benefit on a trinnov. I’m hoping Dolby fixed this with their standard layouts being released. Their height channels in the 11.1.8 format seems to conform best to playback for both Atmos and the new DTS:Pro which might have more relevance if Atmos doesn’t step it up. DTS doesn’t offer tm. Nor does Atmos yet in a x.x.8 config. In a x.x.10 system we might be better off using the extra two channels in the future for the DTS Center height channel and the Center overhead channel and eliminate the the top middles. It’s all a headache..
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 9, 2019 9:58:33 GMT -5
Erwin, what spacing would you recommend with a 9.x.6 layout? And would that include FH, TF and TR? Using TR instead of RH? Interested in how your theory would apply with two less speakers. Thanks, Chuck i know this wasn’t directed towards me but I do think that you have only the two layout choice with 9.1.6 to have tf,tm,tr or fh,tm,rh. We can not mix and match speaker locations from different layouts as they are processed as a unit (would have too much processing demand unless you have a trinnov). If I’m wrong I’d really want to know though. I haven’t heard any impressions with the new fh,tm,rh layout however I don’t seem to be hearing too stellar of reviews for the standard fh,tm,rh format. Usually seems that either the sound only comes from the middles or the middles are omitted. Can’t remember which one seemed prevalent.
|
|
|
Post by cwmcobra on Feb 9, 2019 12:25:22 GMT -5
Thanks for that information. I didn't think about the processor's ability to use different than standard speaker locations. Guess I thought the channels would be assignable to any speaker. But I've not spent enough time studying the capabilities of the RMC-1. I'd still like to hear feedback on the comparative impressions between the two 9.x.6 layouts. Or is the latest option too new to have been tried much? Has there been any discussion on other forums? I've been trying to find info on AVS, but haven't found anything so far.
|
|