|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 9, 2019 13:10:41 GMT -5
Yeah I’ve never heard of a processor using the new 9.1.6 with front and rear heights yet... nor the 11.1.8 so maybe these will be pushed down the chain around the same time.. dunno
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,259
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Feb 10, 2019 13:52:17 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 think I would stil stick with what I have planned: TF+TM+TR @ 45/90/135° or @ 40/80/130° (a bit more forward)
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,259
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Feb 10, 2019 14:08:29 GMT -5
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.. My 9 ear level speakers are @ 0/32/65/100/135° so there are no gaps, only very wide spacing.. You will not be able to hear a difference between a rear speaker @135° or one @150°. Eleven ear level speakers only make sense the the rears are really @150° so all the other are in a 30° interval. On the other hand, with the same logic you only would need 8 overheads with an average 36° vertical spacing. But 36° is to high for FH. I think FH/TF/TM/TR 30/60/90/135° is perfect enough for an ideal x.x.8 setup Conclusion: 9.x.8 is perfect if you make it work. 11.x.10 is for lazy people with big space and ditto wallet I am going for 9.4.8! I knew I needed 2 expansion modules on the RMC-1!
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 10, 2019 14:35:51 GMT -5
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.. My 9 ear level speakers are @ 0/32/65/100/135° so there are no gaps, only very wide spacing.. You will not be able to hear a difference between a rear speaker @135° or one @150°. Eleven ear level speakers only make sense the the rears are really @150° so all the other are in a 30° interval. On the other hand, with the same logic you only would need 8 overheads with an average 36° vertical spacing. But 36° is to high for FH. I think FH/TF/TM/TR 30/60/90/135° is perfect enough for an ideal x.x.8 setup Conclusion: 9.x.8 is perfect if you make it work. 11.x.10 is for lazy people with big space and ditto wallet I am going for 9.4.8! I knew I needed 2 expansion modules on the RMC-1! What I meant was unless Dolby comes out with a 9.1.8 layout you’ll be stuck with either 11.1.8 or 9.1.6. If you chose 11.1.8 processing but only had 9.1.8 speakers the system would leave a gap as it was processing for two additional speakers. I wasn’t saying your plans wouldn’t be great. I’m sure a 9.1.8 would be an awesome system.
|
|
Erwin.BE
Emo VIPs
It's the room, stupid!
Posts: 2,259
|
Post by Erwin.BE on Feb 10, 2019 14:39:33 GMT -5
Ah, I see. Damm Dolby! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 10, 2019 17:56:05 GMT -5
When I was playing around we speaker layouts we just paralleled up the processor outputs to power amps. For example we ran 7.1.4 output (set up on the processor) through 5.1.2 speakers.
Cheers Gary
|
|