|
|
Post by thezone on Jun 26, 2020 18:34:56 GMT -5
So maybe x.1.2 is sufficient for my HT lounge which only has one row of chairs (couch) rather than bust out to x.1.4 which may be more suited to more rows of seats?
|
|
|
|
Post by markc on Jun 27, 2020 1:48:54 GMT -5
So maybe x.1.2 is sufficient for my HT lounge which only has one row of chairs (couch) rather than bust out to x.1.4 which may be more suited to more rows of seats? It really is tricky to know, and the problem is that you can't really place two ceiling speakers for a .2 system and then add more later, to upgrade to .4 as the original two Top Middles will be in the wrong place and will also need to be moved. I think it is room size that is more important than number of rows (And, the space between the seats and the back wall is probably the biggest factor). Is the ceiling behind you big enough to place Top Rears at an angle of 35-60 degrees backwards? If not, and you end up with more of a Top Front plus Top Middle type of placement then I would not bother. The overhead sound will be too far forwards as the Top Front channel output seems to have a much more dominant sound than the Top Rear output A pair of optimally placed 10 degree forward "Top Middle" overhead speakers could possibly lead to more convincing panning Atmos than poorly spaced and incorrect angle 4 ceiling speakers. The "Top Rear" output doesn't seem so important compared with the "Top Front" as my study earlier in this thread showed (Not too surprising as lots of people even question the value of going from 5.1 to 7.1 with rear surrounds) However, if the position of those Top Rears is compromised, then they won't balance the sound going to the more forward Top Fronts, and you'd lose the overhead aspect that my 7.1.2 Top Middles provide In my 7.1.2, the blending of the front to rear soundscape from the front LCR channels up to the two ceiling "Top Middle" overhead speakers and down to my ear level wall mounted rear surrounds seems important - I most definitely have a 360 degree field over the top of my head, with panning of rear to front and front to rear being excellent!. The Star Destroyer passing overhead from behind is a killer app for my 2 ceiling mounted speakers and this is just with Dolby Surround upmixed 7.1 audio, not Atmos source. 7.1.2 works very well! (Even though I concede that I would possibly get even more benefit from a .4 setup, but I have no regrets (for now!) I have one new thought though: If I had a 5.1 system, with no possibility of making it 7.1 with rear surrounds, such as sofa being up against the back wall, I would perhaps think differently and go for 5.1.4 to provide a better "dome" of sound over my head. There would still be an audio void behind you, but better filled in by the four ceiling speakers giving SOME panning of overhead sound. Whether the four height speakers would be set as a pair of Top Middles plus a pair of Rear Heights, rather than incorrectly placed Top Rear would have to be an experiment! |
|
|
|
Post by thezone on Jun 27, 2020 4:01:49 GMT -5
Wow! I'm going to need to re-read that one a few times! To complicate matters the surrounds in my 5.1 setup thus far are really behind me just on either side at ear level I am not able to space them out wide as per the dolby 5.1 spec.
How do you mean "Top Rears at an angle of 35-60 degrees backwards"? Why do the speakers behind need to point backwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by markc on Jun 27, 2020 6:18:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thezone on Jun 30, 2020 6:25:03 GMT -5
So maybe x.1.2 is sufficient for my HT lounge which only has one row of chairs (couch) rather than bust out to x.1.4 which may be more suited to more rows of seats? It really is tricky to know, and the problem is that you can't really place two ceiling speakers for a .2 system and then add more later, to upgrade to .4 as the original two Top Middles will be in the wrong place and will also need to be moved. I think it is room size that is more important than number of rows (And, the space between the seats and the back wall is probably the biggest factor). Is the ceiling behind you big enough to place Top Rears at an angle of 35-60 degrees backwards? If not, and you end up with more of a Top Front plus Top Middle type of placement then I would not bother. The overhead sound will be too far forwards as the Top Front channel output seems to have a much more dominant sound than the Top Rear output A pair of optimally placed 10 degree forward "Top Middle" overhead speakers could possibly lead to more convincing panning Atmos than poorly spaced and incorrect angle 4 ceiling speakers. The "Top Rear" output doesn't seem so important compared with the "Top Front" as my study earlier in this thread showed (Not too surprising as lots of people even question the value of going from 5.1 to 7.1 with rear surrounds) However, if the position of those Top Rears is compromised, then they won't balance the sound going to the more forward Top Fronts, and you'd lose the overhead aspect that my 7.1.2 Top Middles provide In my 7.1.2, the blending of the front to rear soundscape from the front LCR channels up to the two ceiling "Top Middle" overhead speakers and down to my ear level wall mounted rear surrounds seems important - I most definitely have a 360 degree field over the top of my head, with panning of rear to front and front to rear being excellent!. The Star Destroyer passing overhead from behind is a killer app for my 2 ceiling mounted speakers and this is just with Dolby Surround upmixed 7.1 audio, not Atmos source. 7.1.2 works very well! (Even though I concede that I would possibly get even more benefit from a .4 setup, but I have no regrets (for now!) I have one new thought though: If I had a 5.1 system, with no possibility of making it 7.1 with rear surrounds, such as sofa being up against the back wall, I would perhaps think differently and go for 5.1.4 to provide a better "dome" of sound over my head. There would still be an audio void behind you, but better filled in by the four ceiling speakers giving SOME panning of overhead sound. Whether the four height speakers would be set as a pair of Top Middles plus a pair of Rear Heights, rather than incorrectly placed Top Rear would have to be an experiment! So I have read this a couple of times. I am not limited by a rear wall but I am limited by wife. At present I have a 5.1 with 2 surrounds that are at ear level at about 45deg to either side, looking at the dolby recommended setups for 5.1.2 and 5.1.4 would the placement of these surrounds ( which I have hand drawn in red) be an issue as they are not out far enough? They are really not that far off the axis just closer in. Also the side elevation picture of 5.1.4 from the Dolby website shows the rear surrounds behind the rear celling speakers which contradicts the overhead diagram which shows the rear ceiling speakers appear to be behind the rear surrounds?   |
|
|
|
Post by markc on Jul 1, 2020 13:35:27 GMT -5
The second side-on diagram is a sort of typo.
If you look at the 7.1.4 setup, the side profile diagram is identical only now those rear speakers are labelled rear surrounds!
I think the should have a speaker superimposed on the listeners head for both 5.1.4 and 7.1.4 that represents the side surrounds as every other reference on those pages dictates that the side surrounds should to directly to the side, level with your ear or just behind. (90-110 degrees)
Because studs in my right hand wall, my in-wall speakers are both going to be 95 degrees
Note that with those diagrams, it is the angles (azimuth and direction) that are important. This gives the direction that the sound comes from.
in a huge room, the rear surrounds, if on the back wall, will be far behind the rear tops, but with a high ceiling in a small room, the tops could be behind them.
You are a bit compromised in your side surrounds, being more where rear surrounds in a 7.1 would be, but life is full of compromises, and speaker placement is a living room rather than a single use room even more so.
I would more tend to do 5.1.2 Rather than .4 if That were my living room and the "side" surrounds and rear tops were to go there. At least the .2 top middles would be ahead of the side surrounds
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jul 1, 2020 20:45:00 GMT -5
Of all the diminishing returns items I’ve come across in the age of high Fidelity, nothing takes the cake for effort more than the object based audio quest! youtu.be/dAVyEFK1Cs4Bill |
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Jul 1, 2020 21:03:01 GMT -5
Of all the diminishing returns items I’ve come across in the age of high Fidelity, nothing takes the cake for effort more than the object based audio quest! youtu.be/dAVyEFK1Cs4Bill Sorry Bill I have to disagree with that statement. I have a 7.2.4 setup and it is amazing. And honestly the .4 channels were fairly easy to setup. |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jul 1, 2020 21:15:03 GMT -5
Of all the diminishing returns items I’ve come across in the age of high Fidelity, nothing takes the cake for effort more than the object based audio quest! youtu.be/dAVyEFK1Cs4Bill Sorry Bill I have to disagree with that statement. I have a 7.2.4 setup and it is amazing. And honestly the .4 channels were fairly easy to setup. Hi David, It’s ok.... I believe we concur on a lot of things. Nobody can agree of course on everything. I maintain that for the AVERAGE end user who is passionate about film....properly configuring an ATMOS setup like yours would most decidedly blow their head apart! Bill |
|
|
|
Post by thezone on Jul 1, 2020 22:53:26 GMT -5
To make matters worse, you cant just place some speakers in the ceiling to see how they sound, you either go for it or don't. Which makes forums like this handy! Thanks markc!
|
|
|
|
Post by markc on Jul 1, 2020 23:32:24 GMT -5
Of all the diminishing returns items I’ve come across in the age of high Fidelity, nothing takes the cake for effort more than the object based audio quest! youtu.be/dAVyEFK1Cs4Bill For diminished returns, you don't think your 3D TV takes the biscuit, at least for video fidelity? Compromised 2D performance for the gimmick of, well, nothing really.  |
|
|
|
Post by thezone on Jul 2, 2020 1:49:41 GMT -5
Ouch!
|
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jul 2, 2020 7:20:52 GMT -5
Of all the diminishing returns items I’ve come across in the age of high Fidelity, nothing takes the cake for effort more than the object based audio quest! youtu.be/dAVyEFK1Cs4Bill For diminished returns, you don't think your 3D TV takes the biscuit, at least for video fidelity? Compromised 2D performance for the gimmick of, well, nothing really. Those two topics have nothing to do with diminishing returns. Only a matter of opting for one or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveH on Jul 17, 2020 20:36:05 GMT -5
Of all the diminishing returns items I’ve come across in the age of high Fidelity, nothing takes the cake for effort more than the object based audio quest! youtu.be/dAVyEFK1Cs4Bill Sorry Bill I have to disagree with that statement. I have a 7.2.4 setup and it is amazing. And honestly the .4 channels were fairly easy to setup. I agree david. I have 7.2.4 and the .4 truly puts you in the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Jul 17, 2020 22:20:26 GMT -5
To make matters worse, you cant just place some speakers in the ceiling to see how they sound, you either go for it or don't. Which makes forums like this handy! Thanks markc! My son is a photographer and I have used his light box tripods to hang speakers from and then move them around the room in the 3 installations I have helped out with. I also used a ladder in one to hang a speaker from. Of course it’s not a perfect duplication of what it will sound like, but for testing locations and how to configure the speaker layout in the processor it does the job. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jul 18, 2020 12:17:03 GMT -5
“ Please, try 5.1.2 using your direct overhead speakers configured as "Top Middle"in the Front Height Section of the speaker configuration setup. this is a core Atmos setup.” I’ll try this and see what happens. But they are not directly overhead, on back wall facing down about 120 degrees. My other possible option would be to fit 1 immediately underneath the PJ,but don’t like the idea of any vibration on PJ bracket. I know ceiling would solve everything but I’ve been told not allowed...... I’m in the same boat you’re in....(and happily so!) My couch is up against the wall and drilling the ceiling is prohibitive. To follow “The crowd” I would need to flip my setup around and use the narrower wall (more traditional) as the screen wall. That being said, I love my configuration that kicks ass for both music and film. The tweeters (very wide dispersion Allisons) from my rather large surround speakers are roughly 4 feet above ear level. The “overhead” effects I’m getting I believe would fool some Atmos fans into thinking Atmos is indeed, happening in my space. The other problem I have with ceiling installations is that by and large, time honored studies on room boundaries, floor/ wall intersections, or in this case 3 dimensionally ceiling wall boundaries are dispensed with in order to place “the object” where it is best suited. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by hahnsoulo on Jul 10, 2021 2:25:10 GMT -5
Trying 5.1.4 with Cambridge minx, 2 wide above screen and 2 above me only a few feet apart MLP is on the back wall Your speakers are not in a Recognised Dolby 5.1.4 configuration. More like 7.1.2 with the 7 being the usual 5 plus Front Heights (which are not Atmos configuration speakers (Which may explain why you are underwhelmed!) Note that NONE of the recommended/supported Dolby speaker configurations for Atmos include direct firing wall mounted height speakers. (Including speakers mounted hanging from the ceiling but at the edge of the room). Atmos REQUIRES direct overhead sound. <edited> You need direct overhead sound for Atmos . need. It’s a mandatory part of the specification. Either reflected from Dolby Enabled or direct from mid ceiling down-firers (they don’t actually need to be embedded IN the ceiling) I just want to point out for any future people that read this thread that there is one case where Dolby considers height channels to be valid Atmos speakers. In the X.X.6 specs, you have the option of doing a mounted / overhead combo: www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/7.1.6-mounted-overhead-speakers-setup-guide/This is basically 2 front heights, 2 rear heights, and 2 in-ceiling directly in the middle right in line with the seats, and the official spec considers all 6 to be proper Atmos channels. Interestingly, the X.X.4 and X.X.2 layout guides have no option for using height speakers in this way. Only X.X.6 allows for this. |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jul 10, 2021 9:57:16 GMT -5
Just like recorded music varies in sound quality, so do Atmos mixes. Find a movie with a known good atmos mix to set your system up. Otherwise you will be chasing your tail. Examples: Not great atmos mix vs a much better Atmos mix.  |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jul 17, 2021 15:42:00 GMT -5
Help is needed ! I’m trying Atmos but just not convinced. Current 5.1 LCR M&K S150 Rear SS150 running as Tripoles Sofa is against back wall, SS150 are either side of me approx 5ft and 10 at approx ear height Emotiva XMC-2 Trying 5.1.4 with Cambridge minx, 2 wide above screen and 2 above me only a few feet apart MLP is on the back wall I can toggle between 5.1 and 5.1.4 speaker setup using preset 1&2 if I play Atmos Helicoptor demo then yes it adds height so they swirl at ceiling height, in 5.1 they swirl at ear height but so what no real difference. All other demos I’ve toggled between just adds height but nothing else, it’s not like I’m getting surround info then something above me. What demos can I try to convince me, I’ve got the Reelwood disc which covers most things. At the moment not worth the extra speakers and having to buy a 4 ch amp, currently using a borrowed Parasound Zamp x2 i can’t move sofa Any tips ? Curious if you ever actually added Atmos? |
|
