|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 25, 2024 18:42:30 GMT -5
I'll bet that the array setting in the Dolby Atmos Renderer is turned OFF when the client is not in the room.  That is an interesting point. In this new iteration "Client" isn't us it must be the production company. Still strange talk and concepts for mixing when mixing tools are limited to basically 7.1.4. You are missing the whole discussion. The guide we are referring to is the "Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines 2021 05". It's ' Studio Technical Guidelines'. All of the Guide is about Production in a Studio for Home Entertainment. When you mix in that Studio, you mix for a paying Client. The Client is renting the Studio and services to mix a recording for Home Use. The Client may also bring their own mix engineer. Atmos for Home Use is 10 Channels. Setting up 'arrays' in that Studio is for Client monitoring and entertainment; Paying Clients who sit behind the mix engineer. The mix engineer does not need rendered arrays to do his job. The arrays interfere with his mixing which is usually 7.1.4, but could most often be 5.1.4, 7.1.2, or 7.1.4. Home settings are home user and equipment specific. We at home are Not the Client. Stop seeing this Guide as recommendations for the home user. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 25, 2024 18:44:32 GMT -5
That is an interesting point. In this new iteration "Client" isn't us it must be the production company. Still strange talk and concepts for mixing when mixing tools are limited to basically 7.1.4. You are missing the whole discussion. The guide we are referring to is the "Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines 2021 05". It's ' Studio Technical Guidelines'. All of the Guide is about Production in a Studio for Home Entertainment. When you mix in that Studio, you mix for a paying Client. The Client is renting the Studio and services to mix a recording for Home Use. The Client may also bring their own mix engineer. Atmos for Home Use is 10 Channels. Setting up 'arrays' in that Studio is for Client monitoring and entertainment; Paying Clients who sit behind the mix engineer. The mix engineer does not need rendered arrays to do his job. The arrays interfere with his mixing which is usually 7.1.4, but could be 5.1.4, 7.1.2, or 7.1.4. Home settings different than 7.1.4 are home user and equipment specific. We at home are Not the Client. Stop seeing this Guide as recommendations for the home user. It's not recommendations for the home user. It's directions for them to create a room layout if they want to go more than 9.1.4 while still being able to mix and listen to larger rooms. It's all in my last post. I revised my points after reading more. Like I said no one should pile on. I gave 2 ways to test Keith's theory. The 3.1 doc would be definitive. The marantz playback would be very inconvenient for his position. I already know that you're going to ignore my points. But the development costs alone for dolby to do this pointless thing in your scenario doesn't make financial sense. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 25, 2024 18:55:19 GMT -5
You are missing the whole discussion. The guide we are referring to is the "Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines 2021 05". It's ' Studio Technical Guidelines'. All of the Guide is about Production in a Studio for Home Entertainment. When you mix in that Studio, you mix for a paying Client. The Client is renting the Studio and services to mix a recording for Home Use. The Client may also bring their own mix engineer. Atmos for Home Use is 10 Channels. Setting up 'arrays' in that Studio is for Client monitoring and entertainment; Paying Clients who sit behind the mix engineer. The mix engineer does not need rendered arrays to do his job. The arrays interfere with his mixing which is usually 7.1.4, but could be 5.1.4, 7.1.2, or 7.1.4. Home settings different than 7.1.4 are home user and equipment specific. We at home are Not the Client. Stop seeing this Guide as recommendations for the home user. It's not recommendations for the home user. It's directions for them to create a room layout if they want to go more than 9.1.4 while still being able to mix and listen to larger rooms. It's all in my last post. I revised my points after reading more. Like I said no one should pile on. I gave 2 ways to test Keith's theory. The 3.1 doc would be definitive. The marantz playback would be very inconvenient for his position. I already know that you're going to ignore my points. But the development costs alone for dolby to do this pointless thing in your scenario doesn't make financial sense. You really don't understand what is going on. I can't go down your rabbit holes with you anymore. Good night. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 25, 2024 18:58:41 GMT -5
It's not recommendations for the home user. It's directions for them to create a room layout if they want to go more than 9.1.4 while still being able to mix and listen to larger rooms. It's all in my last post. I revised my points after reading more. Like I said no one should pile on. I gave 2 ways to test Keith's theory. The 3.1 doc would be definitive. The marantz playback would be very inconvenient for his position. I already know that you're going to ignore my points. But the development costs alone for dolby to do this pointless thing in your scenario doesn't make financial sense. You really don't understand what is going on. I can't go down your rabbit holes with you anymore. Good night. I admit it's complex but not as complex as knowing Dolby wouldn't have an elaborate program and equipment to playback the full 24.1.10 and every other iteration on a mixing program which tools are limited to working with 9.1.4 for home atmos if it didn't play it back to a standardized spec. That would be a bit wasteful, pointless and idiotic. When it's simplified in this way hopefully it breaks through... probably not. But hey maybe you're right and they were just looking for a write off. The only question is our atmos just watered down or dysfunctional. Hopefully you at least grasp this isn't how it's supposed to be even if it's true Dolby gave our 9.1.6 layout the stamp of approval. I have a higher expectation that my layouts play the same as dolby would play them for a studio producer executive coming to listen to the home atmos edition as you say. It's only code. Easy to check if best buy brands cheapest versions even have the super delux studio producer code. Here's your more likely scenerio you drew up.. "Hey boss you know this mix has nothing to do with the home atmos final product but come here waste your time and come take a listen!!! You bring beer?" |
|
Lsc
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 3,435
|
Post by Lsc on Oct 25, 2024 19:28:42 GMT -5
That is an interesting point. In this new iteration "Client" isn't us it must be the production company. Still strange talk and concepts for mixing when mixing tools are limited to basically 7.1.4. You are missing the whole discussion. The guide we are referring to is the "Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines 2021 05". It's ' Studio Technical Guidelines'. All of the Guide is about Production in a Studio for Home Entertainment. When you mix in that Studio, you mix for a paying Client. The Client is renting the Studio and services to mix a recording for Home Use. The Client may also bring their own mix engineer. Atmos for Home Use is 10 Channels. Setting up 'arrays' in that Studio is for Client monitoring and entertainment; Paying Clients who sit behind the mix engineer. The mix engineer does not need rendered arrays to do his job. The arrays interfere with his mixing which is usually 7.1.4, but could most often be 5.1.4, 7.1.2, or 7.1.4. Home settings are home user and equipment specific. We at home are Not the Client. Stop seeing this Guide as recommendations for the home user. What is the relevance of this document to the RMC1+? Just a general discussion or is there something in this document that we care about with respect to the RMC1+’s future ability to decode to 11:1.8. I don’t even have an Atmos system in my home but I can quickly convert my basement game room to do 7.1.4…anything more is pointless in that room. Even 7 is a bit much 5.1.4 is probably better. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 25, 2024 19:32:51 GMT -5
You are missing the whole discussion. The guide we are referring to is the "Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines 2021 05". It's ' Studio Technical Guidelines'. All of the Guide is about Production in a Studio for Home Entertainment. When you mix in that Studio, you mix for a paying Client. The Client is renting the Studio and services to mix a recording for Home Use. The Client may also bring their own mix engineer. Atmos for Home Use is 10 Channels. Setting up 'arrays' in that Studio is for Client monitoring and entertainment; Paying Clients who sit behind the mix engineer. The mix engineer does not need rendered arrays to do his job. The arrays interfere with his mixing which is usually 7.1.4, but could most often be 5.1.4, 7.1.2, or 7.1.4. Home settings are home user and equipment specific. We at home are Not the Client. Stop seeing this Guide as recommendations for the home user. What is the relevance of this document to the RMC1+? Just a general discussion or is there something in this document that we care about with respect to the RMC1+’s future ability to decode to 11:1.8. I don’t even have an Atmos system in my home but I can quickly convert my basement game room to do 7.1.4…anything more is pointless in that room. Even 7 is a bit much 5.1.4 is probably better. You're clear with all those layouts your concerned about. This only deals with 6 or more heights or the side expansions. And it's not worth understanding if your not planning on investing. Let me just say there is clearly going to be a reason why storm and trinnov are more expensive when you don't hear anything out of your rear sides. The what's appropriate to call atmos playback bickering is deep in the weeds... and I'm right haha jk. I think I am but sounds not technically legally right but only conceptually right so a gray area where the sh** gets thrown. Emotiva's 11.1.8 is bragging rights for people that don't know the corvette z06 they just bought had its engine swapped. Technically not illegal but it's going to be dissappointing when you hit the gas. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 25, 2024 20:46:02 GMT -5
You are missing the whole discussion. The guide we are referring to is the "Dolby Atmos Home Entertainment Studio Technical Guidelines 2021 05". It's ' Studio Technical Guidelines'. All of the Guide is about Production in a Studio for Home Entertainment. When you mix in that Studio, you mix for a paying Client. The Client is renting the Studio and services to mix a recording for Home Use. The Client may also bring their own mix engineer. Atmos for Home Use is 10 Channels. Setting up 'arrays' in that Studio is for Client monitoring and entertainment; Paying Clients who sit behind the mix engineer. The mix engineer does not need rendered arrays to do his job. The arrays interfere with his mixing which is usually 7.1.4, but could most often be 5.1.4, 7.1.2, or 7.1.4. Home settings are home user and equipment specific. We at home are Not the Client. Stop seeing this Guide as recommendations for the home user. What is the relevance of this document to the RMC1+? Just a general discussion or is there something in this document that we care about with respect to the RMC1+’s future ability to decode to 11:1.8. I don’t even have an Atmos system in my home but I can quickly convert my basement game room to do 7.1.4…anything more is pointless in that room. Even 7 is a bit much 5.1.4 is probably better. There is nothing in the doc that relates specifically to RMC-1+ decoding abilities. It's value is academic, such as visiting a studio where your favorite television program is produced to see how it is made. The document's main interest to me, beyond academic interest, is in comparing the basic production physical layout standard in the Home Entertainment Production Studio, to HT layouts as described in the Dolby Atmos speaker setup guides. They don't match - specifically with the Height positions. Deviations from the standard in production are unacceptable, but there is a Dolby allowance factor. Compromises in Home Theater are unavoidable, and there is a Dolby spec for allowable compromise for best reproduction. dolby.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#700000009YuG/a/4u000000lFHc/UYA0IZeD632SUXVmEPmUcr.wIuhpHp6Q7bVSl4LrbUQwww.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/IMO - The basic layouts for production and reproduction should be as similar as possible if you want to reproduce the sound field as recorded. Just like when we would setup a 2 channel stereo for the proper angle between L&R for MLP. Only now, it's much more complicated. However, there is still only ONE MLP for any HT. See the pics in the Dolby Studio and Home guides. The mix engineer in the studio mixes for MLP - One position. There are other considerations too: Different speaker types, respective room sizes and characteristics, room correction or lack of it, bass management or none, home user personal preferences, etc. - too many things to expect a match in every area. Perhaps all we can do is get a sound that pleases us. Intelligibility in multi-channel reproduction is very important to me. Higher channel count beyond what is on the recording is Not on my priority list. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 25, 2024 20:56:16 GMT -5
What is the relevance of this document to the RMC1+? Just a general discussion or is there something in this document that we care about with respect to the RMC1+’s future ability to decode to 11:1.8. I don’t even have an Atmos system in my home but I can quickly convert my basement game room to do 7.1.4…anything more is pointless in that room. Even 7 is a bit much 5.1.4 is probably better. There is nothing in the doc that relates specifically to RMC-1+ decoding abilities. It's value is academic, such as visiting a studio where your favorite television program is produced, to see how it is made. The document's main interest to me, beyond academic interest, is in comparing the basic production physical layout standard in the Home Entertainment Production Studio, to HT layouts as described in the Dolby Atmos speaker setup guides. They don't match - specifically with the Height positions. Deviations from the standard in production are unacceptable, but there is a Dolby allowance factor. Compromises in Home Theater are unavoidable, and there is a Dolby spec for allowable compromise for best reproduction. dolby.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#700000009YuG/a/4u000000lFHc/UYA0IZeD632SUXVmEPmUcr.wIuhpHp6Q7bVSl4LrbUQwww.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/IMO - The basic layouts for production and reproduction should be as similar as possible if you want to reproduce the sound field as recorded. Just like when we would setup a 2 channel stereo for the proper angle between L&R for MLP. Only now, it's much more complicated. There are other considerations too: Different speaker types, respective room sizes and characteristics, room correction or lack of it, bass management or none, home user personal preferences, etc. - too many things to expect a match in every area. Perhaps all we can do is get a sound that pleases us. Intelligibility in multi-channel reproduction is very important to me. Higher channel count beyond what is on the recording is Not on my priority list. They don't match so do you suggest they go out and buy a dedicated storm or trinnov room to see how it plays for the big wigs who write the checks? Or do you admit to them theres no way to ever hear a real dolby home atmos layout that goes past emotivas 9.1.6 because not even storm and trinnov have official dolby playback... Now your proposing it both ways. Is it for the client super big wig that has time to waist or is it for mixing past 9.1.4 without the spacial mixing tools? Why does it exist? Do they want to spend extra money on a larger than necessary room so they need extra seats and speakers? Well who would waist there time by listening to a atmos playback that has no place in cinema or home audio. Around around we go into the rabbit hole. Is the renderer playback a toy for the big wigs as you suggest or does it have practical value in atmos playback? Just remember it's one or the other. They are close enough and like you said people should be designing their rooms as close to possible as the studio. This goes with playback as well. There's a reason it's renderer happens to go to 24.1.10. Because its built to play the home atmos playback all the way to the maximum dolby standard. I agree with everything you said finally. Our conclusions just take a big turn when i analyze practicality and business costs. Everyone has always said don't take the pdfs to heart. They have to accomodate for cheaper speakers, in cieling dispersion patterns etc, Everyone I've heard on YouTube agrees pdfs a a guide not a rule. It must be right. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 25, 2024 21:36:52 GMT -5
You guys can rejoice. Im taking a break from this thing. IF Marantz can indeed do it (Which can be easily tested irl) Emotiva messed up with code and can't recoup the cost to change it and I'll be happy to remind those looking at 11.1.8 this shortsightedness is going to cost them most. The utility of the Emotiva 11.1.8 expansion is less than you'd get with wides by a long shot even with 2 rows. This is a complete waist of time right now. When weighing your decision remember they will play just as little as wides and be behind you. Maybe it helps the guy on the end in the 2nd row with object playback at best. The 4 center tops will image into 2 speakers most of the time. And the 8 together will be even less involved in the mix as your wides with object only playback. The only way this pencils out on utility is if dirac art comes along. At least then those speakers can serve an additional role. My discussion is between a business man that may or may not have financial ties to not wanting to rework code that may have been possible at a earlier time for a similar cost and all the others who never intend to buy an 11.1.8 expansion but seem to enjoy that there is even more reason to never worry about any of us getting the full dolby standard playback and benefit of that layout. If Dolby chooses to playback their material on the mixing renderer in the studio with a more practical effectice way that adds utility to the home and takes away utility in mixing tools then you've just got to be an NPC on the subject to think that's not their intended standard to be carried over. Our 11.1.8 8 tops and 4 sides are meant to be bed arrays for playback to conform to dolbys preferred expansion. Chatgpt agrees. Do your guy's own research and think for yourselves. I'm not going to be someones useful idiot as they say. |
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Oct 26, 2024 16:27:23 GMT -5
chatgpt.com/share/671e3902-38d4-8006-aad2-6cf5a134818bThe bed arrays are not legally required for atmos. However the closer the unit gets to the dolby home renderer playback the better. Think of it as the gold standard. The question is does Marantz have more material play through the front and rear speakers in native x.1.6 atmos. If it does we should demand this bed channel behavior because we know its not injecting objects. I'm not going to demand trinnov and storm bed behavior unless Marantz also pulled it off. I thought it only fair for you guys to have the chance to prove the chatgpt wrong continuing the conversation using your own personalized data. You can pry it in places you think i may have manipulated results. I think the only 100% way to verify is to hook up one atmos player to a emotiva and marantz set them up to x.1.6 and listen to 2 speakers hooked up to the top front right of each. If there is a difference in material played ever then we can verify. However as Keith stated a broad range of content needs to be listened and no Disney. Now I'm out. A better test for marantz owners is to simply play the front and rear tops. Disconnect all other speakers. If material plays between all these speakers it is beds in a x.x.6. Objects would not span that far unless maybe disney..
|
|
|
|
Post by docevil on Oct 27, 2024 4:23:37 GMT -5
There is definitely a lot of confusion here and for good reason, Dolby hasn't really done their best to make things clear. Here are some of my thoughts/observations, hopefully they help people? Dolby only does X.1.X, you may be able to hook up multiple subs and EQ them independently but they are all playing the same LFE X.1.X. If you have multiple subs, you still have an X.1.X system. People like to describe their system as being X.4.X when they have 4 subs for example which is fine, I completely support that, we are all proud of our systems and want to share our hobby with others but to be technical, a multi-sub system is still X.1.X. Beds are up to 7.1.2 but don't have to be, the bed could be 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 5.1, 7.0, 7.1, 7.0.2, or 7.1.2. There are actually three relevant Dolby documents: The Home Cinema Guidelines, these are more simplified for less technical users and have a built in 'wiggle room' to accommodate a wide breadth of environments. www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdfThe Studio Guidelines, these are definitely the most precise guidelines for creating a workspace that is really only intended to be used by a single, central listener. dolby.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#700000009YuG/a/4u000000lFHc/UYA0IZeD632SUXVmEPmUcr.wIuhpHp6Q7bVSl4LrbUQThe Commercial Cinema Guidelines, these address delivering sound to a multi-row, multi-user environment. professional.dolby.com/siteassets/cinema-products---documents/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdfDepending on what you are trying to accomplish in your space, chances are that you will be able to glean some information from each of these documents. Small theater where you are the only on who cares about the sound? The studio guideline will heavily influence. Large home theater, multi-row, multi-user and you care about everyone's experience? You will probably get some useful info out of the Commercial guideline. Mixed use, low key media room? Probably lean towards the home cinema guidelines. Another really good document is CTA-RP22 released last year. They spend a few pages talking about arrays and how to use them in larger, multi row rooms. Free download here: cedia.org/smart-home-professionals/advocacy/standards-best-practices/immersive-audio-design-excellence/As far as the height speakers, looks like the bed layer x.y.2 speakers are mapped to the center 2 speakers in an x.y.6 speaker layout, the other two pairs would be used for objects similar to how wides are used. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 27, 2024 8:58:24 GMT -5
There is definitely a lot of confusion here and for good reason, Dolby hasn't really done their best to make things clear. Here are some of my thoughts/observations, hopefully they help people? Dolby only does X.1.X, you may be able to hook up multiple subs and EQ them independently but they are all playing the same LFE X.1.X. If you have multiple subs, you still have an X.1.X system. People like to describe their system as being X.4.X when they have 4 subs for example which is fine, I completely support that, we are all proud of our systems and want to share our hobby with others but to be technical, a multi-sub system is still X.1.X. Beds are up to 7.1.2 but don't have to be, the bed could be 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 5.1, 7.0, 7.1, 7.0.2, or 7.1.2. There are actually three relevant Dolby documents: The Home Cinema Guidelines, these are more simplified for less technical users and have a built in 'wiggle room' to accommodate a wide breadth of environments. www.dolby.com/siteassets/technologies/dolby-atmos/atmos-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdfThe Studio Guidelines, these are definitely the most precise guidelines for creating a workspace that is really only intended to be used by a single, central listener. dolby.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#700000009YuG/a/4u000000lFHc/UYA0IZeD632SUXVmEPmUcr.wIuhpHp6Q7bVSl4LrbUQThe Commercial Cinema Guidelines, these address delivering sound to a multi-row, multi-user environment. professional.dolby.com/siteassets/cinema-products---documents/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdfDepending on what you are trying to accomplish in your space, chances are that you will be able to glean some information from each of these documents. Small theater where you are the only on who cares about the sound? The studio guideline will heavily influence. Large home theater, multi-row, multi-user and you care about everyone's experience? You will probably get some useful info out of the Commercial guideline. Mixed use, low key media room? Probably lean towards the home cinema guidelines. Another really good document is CTA-RP22 released last year. They spend a few pages talking about arrays and how to use them in larger, multi row rooms. Free download here: cedia.org/smart-home-professionals/advocacy/standards-best-practices/immersive-audio-design-excellence/As far as the height speakers, looks like the bed layer x.y.2 speakers are mapped to the center 2 speakers in an x.y.6 speaker layout, the other two pairs would be used for objects similar to how wides are used. I like the Cedia/CTA-RP22 doc. It does a good job of defining and describing concepts. 5.8, page 63, tries to address necessary compromises because of different formats. As 5.8 in the Cedia doc states: “Nowhere is the disparity of speaker placement recommendations between the main immersive audio formats more evident than with the upper layer.” “These recommendations are directly applicable for a single seat situation but need to be adapted to the multi-seat context of an entertainment space. Upper sound localization will be compromised as the listener moves away from the RSP”. RSP is Reference Seating Position in the Cedia doc = MLP My thoughts – More consolidation of format differences is necessary. MLP is still the primary listening position in HT. It will always be the primary listening position. The Dolby guides for HT and Studio HT production, and the Cedia doc, reference to MLP; or RSP as the Cedia doc calls it. A HT is just not big enough to optimize for more than MLP. Adaptations may improve coverage, but will always compromise the sound field. It is what it is. The industry creates technical details and standards for production and reproduction of a 3D sound field, with different formats, and then proceeds to help us make scrambled eggs at home. It’s cognitive dissonance. I optimise for MLP. I do 95% of the viewing and listening in my home. Some of my listening is entirely outside the sound field - background listening. Compromising the sound field for 5% of the listening is not functional. Additional listeners in a HT care about the sound field as much as patrons do in a commercial theater experience. I gladly offer MLP to guests. About one in five accept. The rest don’t care. Usually, the guest who sits at MLP can’t tell the difference. They accept my invitation to humor the host. This is a peculiar hobby. All floor speakers need to be the same speaker. All upper speakers need to be the same speaker, but will not likely be the same as the floor speakers. Differences will greatly affect the sound field. See the Cedia doc Section 6.1.3, page 74 – “Accuracy of spatial resolution is directly related to how well speakers match in both amplitude and phase — the inter-speaker characteristics.” "the inter-speaker characteristics" - Popularly and primitively, assumed to be called voicing. Now, add recommended adaptations to improve coverage and you see how the guidelines get kind of schizophrenic. Did I write that this is a peculiar hobby?... ~~~ I think the Cedia/CTA-RP22 doc is about as good as any single reference gets right now. Thanks for sharing. cedia.org/site/assets/files/6057/cedia-cta_rp22_v1_2_sept_2023.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by docevil on Oct 28, 2024 2:06:45 GMT -5
If you liked the CTA-RP22 document, you should take a peek at Trinnov's Loudspeaker Layout Document if you haven't already. Trinnov was a major contributor to RP22 for the speaker placement portions, they basically used all of their recommendations but the Trinnov document expands on it more and discusses as it relates to each of the three major standards. drive.google.com/file/d/1qFpM5c9_n_0PU6EcW-J5qFvf4QDWqjg3/viewAnother interesting document is the summation of the NHK 22.2 study below, gives a lot of insight into people's perception of speaker placement/layout. www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/en/fe0025-2.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 28, 2024 8:29:32 GMT -5
If you liked the CTA-RP22 document, you should take a peek at Trinnov's Loudspeaker Layout Document if you haven't already. Trinnov was a major contributor to RP22 for the speaker placement portions, they basically used all of their recommendations but the Trinnov document expands on it more and discusses as it relates to each of the three major standards. drive.google.com/file/d/1qFpM5c9_n_0PU6EcW-J5qFvf4QDWqjg3/viewAnother interesting document is the summation of the NHK 22.2 study below, gives a lot of insight into people's perception of speaker placement/layout. www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/bt/en/fe0025-2.pdfI discovered that I have the Trinnov doc. I hadn't looked at it in so long that I didn't make the connection to the CTA-RP22. IIRC Trinnov wrote a longer reference book/paper too. I have not seen it. Thanks for the NHK paper. Perception of speaker placement/layout is something I want to know more about: I discovered a curious perception phenomena a few years ago. Discrete sound from the Left rear Surround was being thrown to the front left with a particular Atmos music recording - It wasn't just this recording that was throwing rear sound to the front; It was just more noticeable with this recording, and the discrete sound happened to be on the left in this recording. Later on, I watched a video by Anthony Grimani. He discussed this phenomena and the cure in the video. Anthony places the Rear Surrounds much closer together - at about 170 degrees from front center - 20 degrees apart. I tried this. This fixed the problem of rear sound being thrown to the front, but the rear sound separation was too narrow for discrete signals. I now have a different set of higher directivity speakers in the 7 floor channels. The new speakers are also all the same. I was able to seperate the Rear Surround speakers to 160 degrees from front center - 40 degrees apart - with the Rear Surround sound remaining in the rear, and with better discrete sound placement. I have to do more experimentation and see if putting the Rears in the standard recommended angles will work now with my new higher directivity floor channels. Higher directivity, and having the same speakers in all floor positions, has made improvements in the sound field. I also want to know if there is some logic to Dolby Top speaker placement differences between Pro and HT. Is it a perceptual issue? Is it practical compromise to get more people to do Atmos installs? Something else? Anthony Grimani teaches something very similar to the Pro Top setup. I agree with him. It's how my .2 Tops are positioned. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 28, 2024 9:16:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 28, 2024 9:50:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 28, 2024 9:59:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 28, 2024 10:03:09 GMT -5
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Oct 28, 2024 11:55:52 GMT -5
If you're asking whether there are differences between "pro" and "home" Atmos installations then yes... First of all most theater installations use a LOT more speakers... with 32 or 64 being pretty standard. And they generally use all speakers as individual object speakers while allowing you to decide which speakers are assigned to beds. This allows the installer to select how many speakers to include in each bet to get the proper coverage depending on room acoustics and speaker directionality. You've also got a few other rather obvious differences... - the room is usually a LOT bigger - the "prime listening area" usually occupies most of the 'room" - the speakers are usually a lot further away, and a lot higher, than in a home installation But also bear in mind that the "design goal" of an "Atmos studio" is to enable the mix engineer "to hear exactly what they're mixing"... And this is rather different than "setting up a home theater, with a bunch of seats, that all receive good sound"... It's assumed that, "if the mix is done right Atmos will take care to ensure that all the objects end up in the right place..." .............. I also want to know if there is some logic to Dolby Top speaker placement differences between Pro and HT. Is it a perceptual issue? Is it practical compromise to get more people to do Atmos installs? Something else? Anthony Grimani teaches something very similar to the Pro Top setup. I agree with him. It's how my .2 Tops are positioned. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Oct 28, 2024 13:46:16 GMT -5
If you're asking whether there are differences between "pro" and "home" Atmos installations then yes... First of all most theater installations use a LOT more speakers... with 32 or 64 being pretty standard. And they generally use all speakers as individual object speakers while allowing you to decide which speakers are assigned to beds. This allows the installer to select how many speakers to include in each bet to get the proper coverage depending on room acoustics and speaker directionality. You've also got a few other rather obvious differences... - the room is usually a LOT bigger - the "prime listening area" usually occupies most of the 'room" - the speakers are usually a lot further away, and a lot higher, than in a home installation But also bear in mind that the "design goal" of an "Atmos studio" is to enable the mix engineer "to hear exactly what they're mixing"... And this is rather different than "setting up a home theater, with a bunch of seats, that all receive good sound"... It's assumed that, "if the mix is done right Atmos will take care to ensure that all the objects end up in the right place..." .............. I also want to know if there is some logic to Dolby Top speaker placement differences between Pro and HT. Is it a perceptual issue? Is it practical compromise to get more people to do Atmos installs? Something else? Anthony Grimani teaches something very similar to the Pro Top setup. I agree with him. It's how my .2 Tops are positioned. I see that I wasn't clear enough. I was referring to the difference between a standard studio setup to produce home entertainment content (Pro), and what is recommended in the Dolby HT layouts. The Top layouts don't match. Anthony Grimani recommends putting the Tops in positions that are closer to what is used in the studio mix layout. I agree with him. I use .2 Tops, and use his advice for position. Check out his videos above for a great explanation of good and bad Top speaker positioning. The latest S&M test disc has some neat tests to evaluate object position. I like what I hear compared to the visual representation. I like what I hear when I rerun the test with my eyes closed so I won't be swayed by the visual. My goal at home is to hear what is on the recording; "to hear exactly what they're mixing" for home entertainment... I don't know how many ways I need to say it, but I'll keep saying it... Jus sayin'  When Atmos was first introduced, we saw marvelous Dolby pictures of a ‘dome’ of sound above us in the sound field; A dome where pinpoint objects would be a part of reproduction. It was going to revolutionize movies and music. Now we are down to "setting up a home theater, with a bunch of seats, that all receive good sound". Your statement sounds like a euphemism for planned mediocrity because of unrealized goals. I didn’t spend all this time and money to accept something little better than ALL STEREO from a bunch of speakers in a room. There is only One good seat in a HT. I design for that one good seat so I can hear the best of a recording. The rest are good enough. To stay within the purposes of this thread, I don't care what happens in a commercial theater. But, the "prime listening area" in a commercial theater is only about 5-9 seats in a 200 seat Atmos theater. IT DOES NOT EVER occupy most of the room. I know exactly what seats to reserve when I go to the theater.  |
|
