|
|
Post by docevil on Oct 28, 2024 20:24:29 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of Anthony Grimani, he has definitely influenced my theater design especially when I was looking at the CEDIA 2023 room he and others put together but I have also deviated from his recommendations in areas as well. I also ended up with relatively narrow rear surrounds at about 157° which I kept wider than Grimani's recommendations to maintain separation.
I think there is actually more congruence between the three Dolby documents than most people think. The Atmos ideal for tops outlined in the Studio document outlines 45° + 1/2 of the side surround angle. In the Cinema, the side surrounds are quite high up, 20-30° which would put the tops quite high at 55-60°.
Grimani has done two really good series of videos with the Audioholics and AVPro Edge youtube channels if you missed them. Edit: another couple on FAQnatics too!
|
|
|
|
Post by UK-Emo-owner on Oct 31, 2024 15:27:17 GMT -5
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'  Then your goal aligns with listening to the mix in as close as you can get to the reference environment that the mixers are expected to be using and what they use to proof listen to their mix. In which case the document mentioned above which defines Studio setups is HIGHLY relevant to you and your home setup despite your dismissive protestations, rebuttal of lrobertson and repeated attempts to pooh-pooh it as being relevant to STUDIO (your emphasis, not mine) and not home environments. The suggested home setup tolerances may be more "flexible" with the multiplicity of Dolby setups for each x.1.x speaker array (even so far as allowing peripheral wall mounted height speakers rather than the definitely more appropriate overhead speakers) but that does not mean that those variable accommodative setups achieve the same result. (Clue: They don't and cannot!) Get as close as one can to the reference studio setup in that document (assuming it is being adhered to whilst mixing) and only then will you get closer to your stated goal and hear the closest to what the mixer / producer / engineer intended and heard. I'm not sure why you and others are resisting the acceptance of this concept and hounded the person making the valid points. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 1, 2024 15:27:47 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDL95RzX6zgPoes: 3:55 - Studios doing content in DTS-X are not not monitoring in DTS-X. They monitor in Dolby Atmos and then convert to DTS-X. There is no REmonitoring at the conversion. It's just a conversion. 4:15 - At least at major studios, everything is done in Dolby Atmos, and it's done to the standards of Dolby Atmos Pro, which means they are using Tops, not Heights, and that Tops are going to be at the angle that's in the documentation for it. Interesting presentation.
|
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Nov 2, 2024 14:54:50 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDL95RzX6zgPoes: 3:55 - Studios doing content in DTS-X are not not monitoring in DTS-X. They monitor in Dolby Atmos and then convert to DTS-X. There is no REmonitoring at the conversion. It's just a conversion. 4:15 - At least at major studios, everything is done in Dolby Atmos, and it's done to the standards of Dolby Atmos Pro, which means they are using Tops, not Heights, and that Tops are going to be at the angle that's in the documentation for it. Interesting presentation. Yeah, Poe is a smart guy. I never understood the height vs tops discussion. If it’s mixed with tops then tops it is in the HT IMO. Although as Poe says, front height with tops would be perfect. Fills the ”hole” people may feel between the fronts and the tops. When I used front heights, before I installed my tops, it was a great sounding effect. Like a wall of sound. I guessed most mixes are done in Atmos. It’s the simpler format (two layers). Locked positions for speakers that most HT and cinemas use for their setup. DTS:X may be the optimal speaker setup if done according to DTS specs. However too complicated for most homes. Although DTS scales well to lesser and different speaker setups. What I’m concerned with is rather difference between DTS:X and Atmos height vs tops placement. There is a problem with sound bleeding from top to fronts when sound are supposed to come from DTS:X own height position which isn’t exactly the same as the tops for Atmos. Here Emotiva’s task would be to setup the tops to be heights when the DTS decoder is active.  |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 2, 2024 15:26:03 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDL95RzX6zgPoes: 3:55 - Studios doing content in DTS-X are not not monitoring in DTS-X. They monitor in Dolby Atmos and then convert to DTS-X. There is no REmonitoring at the conversion. It's just a conversion. 4:15 - At least at major studios, everything is done in Dolby Atmos, and it's done to the standards of Dolby Atmos Pro, which means they are using Tops, not Heights, and that Tops are going to be at the angle that's in the documentation for it. Interesting presentation. Yeah, Poe is a smart guy. I never understood the height vs tops discussion. If it’s mixed with tops then tops it is in the HT IMO. Although as Poe says, front height with tops would be perfect. Fills the ”hole” people may feel between the fronts and the tops. When I used front heights, before I installed my tops, it was a great sounding effect. Like a wall of sound. I guessed most mixes are done in Atmos. It’s the simpler format (two layers). Locked positions for speakers that most HT and cinemas use for their setup. DTS:X may be the optimal speaker setup if done according to DTS specs. However too complicated for most homes. Although DTS scales well to lesser and different speaker setups. What I’m concerned with is rather difference between DTS:X and Atmos height vs tops placement. There is a problem with sound bleeding from top to fronts when sound are supposed to come from DTS:X own height position which isn’t exactly the same as the tops for Atmos. Here Emotiva’s task would be to setup the tops to be heights when the DTS decoder is active. View AttachmentPoes does address the Tops vs Heights discussion. I'm not satisfied with the argument as some present it. (not Poes). I did use a .6 height configuration - front Heights; middle Tops; rear Heights. I didn't like the 'wall of sound' as much as the .2 middle Tops that I use now. They are setup as front Tops in the RMC-1L - recommended by Emotiva. Emotiva said the .2 config is the same sound whether used as front Tops or Middle Tops. When I do the Atmos test from the S&M test disc, I get a full sweep, with phantom images, from front to back. I don't sense any holes with a .2 Height config. I don't understand the sound bleed problem you are describing. Is this an upmixing issue? |
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Nov 2, 2024 15:36:50 GMT -5
Yeah, Poe is a smart guy. I never understood the height vs tops discussion. If it’s mixed with tops then tops it is in the HT IMO. Although as Poe says, front height with tops would be perfect. Fills the ”hole” people may feel between the fronts and the tops. When I used front heights, before I installed my tops, it was a great sounding effect. Like a wall of sound. I guessed most mixes are done in Atmos. It’s the simpler format (two layers). Locked positions for speakers that most HT and cinemas use for their setup. DTS:X may be the optimal speaker setup if done according to DTS specs. However too complicated for most homes. Although DTS scales well to lesser and different speaker setups. What I’m concerned with is rather difference between DTS:X and Atmos height vs tops placement. There is a problem with sound bleeding from top to fronts when sound are supposed to come from DTS:X own height position which isn’t exactly the same as the tops for Atmos. Here Emotiva’s task would be to setup the tops to be heights when the DTS decoder is active. View AttachmentPoes does address the Tops vs Heights discussion. I'm not satisfied with the argument as some present it. (not Poes). I did use a .6 height configuration - front Heights; middle Tops; rear Heights. I didn't like the 'wall of sound' as much as the .2 middle Tops that I use now. They are setup as front Tops in the RMC-1L - recommended by Emotiva. Emotiva said the .2 config is the same sound whether used as front Tops or Middle Tops. When I do the Atmos test from the S&M test disc, I get a full sweep, with phantom images, from front to back. I don't sense any holes with a .2 Height config. I don't understand the sound bleed problem you are describing. Is this an upmixing issue? No and yes. It’s how DTS:X handles sound that comes between speakers that doesn’t exist in their setup. If sound should come from the heights but you don’t have them. DTS:X plays (bleeds) both tops and fronts to create the height sound. If however the processor had setup DTS:X to have their heights at the same position as Atmos tops the bleed to create a phantom image would not be needed. In this case atleast. The bed speakers being the same for both so it’s only height/top speakers that create this issue. Edit: The ”hole” is noticed more if you have larger rooms and the distance between fronts and tops is too long. Sometimes you won’t notice it unless you have a specific movie with an effect that moves the sound that way. The wall of sound is mostly appriciated with live music IMO. A great effect of feeling the bigger stage. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Nov 2, 2024 15:38:58 GMT -5
What is the difference in content received at the speaker between setting the speakers as tops vs heights. I'm not talking about the physical placement of the speakers but whether the content sent to the speakers is any different when configured as tops or heights.
|
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Nov 2, 2024 15:44:59 GMT -5
What is the difference in content received at the speaker between setting the speakers as tops vs heights. I'm not talking about the physical placement of the speakers but whether the content sent to the speakers is any different when configured as tops or heights. In Atmos setup and Atmos content it shouldn’t make much difference. Atmos do playback to the speakers that is in the setup, no phantom image between if speakers are missing. If the sound is mixed to the front top and you have front height. Atmos decoder simply tells the processor to play the sound accordingly so the volume, phase and distance is correct. Edit: However, if you have someone stomping on the floor above you, front heights may playback this with a different feeling. It won’t sound as coming directly above. But a plane or helicopter flyby won’t sound as strange.. Especially in combination with other height speakers. Edit2: With DTS:X just changing the speaker in the processor may fix this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 2, 2024 16:35:38 GMT -5
Poes does address the Tops vs Heights discussion. I'm not satisfied with the argument as some present it. (not Poes). I did use a .6 height configuration - front Heights; middle Tops; rear Heights. I didn't like the 'wall of sound' as much as the .2 middle Tops that I use now. They are setup as front Tops in the RMC-1L - recommended by Emotiva. Emotiva said the .2 config is the same sound whether used as front Tops or Middle Tops. When I do the Atmos test from the S&M test disc, I get a full sweep, with phantom images, from front to back. I don't sense any holes with a .2 Height config. I don't understand the sound bleed problem you are describing. Is this an upmixing issue? No and yes. It’s how DTS:X handles sound that comes between speakers that doesn’t exist in their setup. If sound should come from the heights but you don’t have them. DTS:X plays (bleeds) both tops and fronts to create the height sound. If however the processor had setup DTS:X to have their heights at the same position as Atmos tops the bleed to create a phantom image would not be needed. In this case atleast. The bed speakers being the same for both so it’s only height/top speakers that create this issue. What I sense in DTS is 'blend'. Sound from (in between) any adjacent pair is a more diffuse sound than Dolby in the sound field. Is this what you mean when you say 'bleed'? I hear this with upmixing when I upmix a PCM recording using DTS. I don't like the results of upmixing with DTS or Dolby. Any adjacent pair can produce a phantom image. We manage to reproduce phantom images with 2 channel stereo and a 60 degree speaker spread. The best surround phantom images are produced with acoustic space recordings mic'd with a surround mic tree, or holophonic mic. No Objects needed. A consistent standard layout needs to be maintained between studio production and HT reproduction to accurately hear what is on a recording. The position of my Tops are going to be the same with any kind of decoding. I prefer the Top position that is used in the studio. The studio Top position will also remain the same regardless of the encoding technique. The studio mixes in channels - before the encoding is applied. If Poes's words are true, everything starts as Atmos at major studios, and may be converted to DTS-X without remonitoring. I think this is a licensing fee issue. Edit - While any adjacent pair can produce a phantom image, I see (with metering) and hear surround phantom images that are created with various position combinations. There is often; a triangulation with Center and L&R Surrounds; a combination with Front L&R and Back L&R; other combinations that include Heights/Tops too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2024 7:46:52 GMT -5
Watching the PBS series Leonardo Da Vinci last night, when I saw the famous drawing of the Vitruvian Man ... well one thing popped into my head so I had to do it. So enough of all this debate over speaker placement. As with many things, Da Vinci figured it out 500 years ago!  p.s. I literally superimposed the Dolby drawing so the fronts and rears touched the circle … didn’t mess with the locations AT ALL! Perfect! Right down to where you plant the naughty bits! |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Nov 22, 2024 8:06:38 GMT -5
Watching the PBS series Leonardo Da Vinci last night, when I saw the famous drawing of the Vitruvian Man ... well one thing popped into my head so I had to do it. So enough of all this debate over speaker placement. As with many things, Da Vinci figured it out 500 years ago! View Attachmentp.s. I literally superimposed the Dolby drawing so the fronts and rears touched the circle … didn’t mess with the locations AT ALL! Perfect! Right down to where you plant the naughty bits! Critical distance should be at Vitruvian Man's naval. Do you hear a dynamo hum when you plant your MLP face in Vitruvian Man's lap? I'll defer this experiment to someone more willing. |
|
|
|
Post by jjkessler on Nov 22, 2024 9:22:56 GMT -5
Love the modesty couch placement
|
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Nov 27, 2024 23:34:40 GMT -5
Watching the PBS series Leonardo Da Vinci last night, when I saw the famous drawing of the Vitruvian Man ... well one thing popped into my head so I had to do it. So enough of all this debate over speaker placement. As with many things, Da Vinci figured it out 500 years ago! View Attachmentp.s. I literally superimposed the Dolby drawing so the fronts and rears touched the circle … didn’t mess with the locations AT ALL! Perfect! Right down to where you plant the naughty bits! Many installers say the top speakers sound better when placed tighter together. Like around 35 degrees width. Also have the speakers point to the MLP especially if the ceiling isn’t very high up. Around 45 degrees forward and backward. Maybe a little tighter with a low ceiling. The Dolby guide says these placements still are within specs.    |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2024 8:39:46 GMT -5
Over the past month I've had some circumstances that led me to revisit my tops. First, I helped out in The Listening Room's Atmos demo at CAF and we positioned the tops on some stands made from Magnepan larger speaker frames. This served as a way to get the tops up high, the fronts and surrounds mounted vertically, add bass traps and absorbers to the room (stands filled with rock wool) ... and a clever way to show the sizes of the Magnepan line.  I was satisfied that the placement was good, and certainly better than other Atmos demos I have seen ... like when SVS goes to shows with a 5.1.2 system and puts the tops on the side walls left and right of MLP. I did a Dirac calibration in the room using their Primare SPA25 AVR which only had the 500Hz Dirac version, and also had a significant limitation in that it locked down channel levels trims. But in the end - at least the night before the show when I could sit and listen to a lot of content for an hour - I liked the sound and I especially appreciated how the tops sounded at that lower angle. Of course, next day when the show opened they boomed up the Perlisten subwoofers and IMO ... the sound was pretty terrible ... but that's Marketing, not Engineering ... So ... those four MC1 tops became available as they couldn't be sold as new, and the market for them is pretty small anyways ... so I got a deal! While waiting to pick them up I decided to upgrade amplifiers since I'd need a bit more power for these ... and also just to get consistent power around all my Magnepan peripheral speakers. Yesterday, with the help of a couple friends, I hung the four MC1 tops. I had been using Magnepan MMGW front tops and Polk rear tops at 45 degrees to the MLP which put them pretty high on my 8' ceiling. I decided to drop the MC1s lower, based on my experience in the CAF room and also some research and videos suggesting that with an 8' ceiling a lower angle would work better. Note that with a 10' or 12' ceiling, even 45 degrees can put the tops nearly at the front and back walls. But with an 8' ceiling 35 degrees still keeps them well onto the ceiling ... fronts 9' from the front wall and rears 6' from the rear wall. I ended up with the front tops at about 30 degrees and rear tops at 34 degrees, with about a 30 degree spread from the MLP. With these Magnepans the position is ambiguous but I use the center of the panel ... and note that mounted horizontal they spray a very high and wide dispersion pattern that easily covers all the seats on my couch without any off-axis falloff of high frequencies that in-ceiling mounted speakers would have. With them hanging as they are, I'll be able to shift them left or right several inches. Since the panels are dipoles, the angles direct the rear waves totally innocuously away from the listener and just add to room ambience.   Plenty of tweaking and Dirac calibration to do today (as well as cleaning up tools and other debris!) ... and yes I'll dress the wires after I'm satisfied it's all dialed in. And also ... the tops are now spread more fore and aft, and I have these MMGWs that I had used as front tops .... should I consider center tops? |
|
ttocs
Global Moderator 
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,760
|
Post by ttocs on Dec 13, 2024 10:46:55 GMT -5
And also ... the tops are now spread more fore and aft, and I have these MMGWs that I had used as front tops .... should I consider center tops? I would! |
|
timg
Minor Hero
Posts: 76
|
Post by timg on Apr 18, 2025 12:49:04 GMT -5
I'm building 11.1.8 in my theater. I'm hopeful that Emotiva comes out with expansion boards for the extra speakers and utilizes the latest 1.8.x Atmos decoder that allows up to 35 channels. Way back when I bought my RMC1, 24 channel output was advertised. I considered limiting my new theater to 9.1.6, but 2x speakers were already installed in the ceiling and 11.1.8 makes the most sense to cover multiple rows in a long theater. My previous theater was 9.1.6, but the math wasn't math-ing for 9.1.6 in my new theater.
|
|
ttocs
Global Moderator
I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whomever I'm with. (Elwood P Dowd)
Posts: 8,760
|
Post by ttocs on Apr 18, 2025 13:45:21 GMT -5
I'm building 11.1.8 in my theater. I'm hopeful that Emotiva comes out with expansion boards for the extra speakers and utilizes the latest 1.8.x Atmos decoder that allows up to 35 channels. Way back when I bought my RMC1, 24 channel output was advertised. I considered limiting my new theater to 9.1.6, but 2x speakers were already installed in the ceiling and 11.1.8 makes the most sense to cover multiple rows in a long theater. My previous theater was 9.1.6, but the math wasn't math-ing for 9.1.6 in my new theater. Interesting, would have to be pretty large, right? I'm curious as to how long your theater is, and what the ceiling height is? And while you're at it, what's the width? |
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Apr 21, 2025 17:36:44 GMT -5
Over the past month I've had some circumstances that led me to revisit my tops. First, I helped out in The Listening Room's Atmos demo at CAF and we positioned the tops on some stands made from Magnepan larger speaker frames. This served as a way to get the tops up high, the fronts and surrounds mounted vertically, add bass traps and absorbers to the room (stands filled with rock wool) ... and a clever way to show the sizes of the Magnepan line. View AttachmentI was satisfied that the placement was good, and certainly better than other Atmos demos I have seen ... like when SVS goes to shows with a 5.1.2 system and puts the tops on the side walls left and right of MLP. I did a Dirac calibration in the room using their Primare SPA25 AVR which only had the 500Hz Dirac version, and also had a significant limitation in that it locked down channel levels trims. But in the end - at least the night before the show when I could sit and listen to a lot of content for an hour - I liked the sound and I especially appreciated how the tops sounded at that lower angle. Of course, next day when the show opened they boomed up the Perlisten subwoofers and IMO ... the sound was pretty terrible ... but that's Marketing, not Engineering ... So ... those four MC1 tops became available as they couldn't be sold as new, and the market for them is pretty small anyways ... so I got a deal! While waiting to pick them up I decided to upgrade amplifiers since I'd need a bit more power for these ... and also just to get consistent power around all my Magnepan peripheral speakers. Yesterday, with the help of a couple friends, I hung the four MC1 tops. I had been using Magnepan MMGW front tops and Polk rear tops at 45 degrees to the MLP which put them pretty high on my 8' ceiling. I decided to drop the MC1s lower, based on my experience in the CAF room and also some research and videos suggesting that with an 8' ceiling a lower angle would work better. Note that with a 10' or 12' ceiling, even 45 degrees can put the tops nearly at the front and back walls. But with an 8' ceiling 35 degrees still keeps them well onto the ceiling ... fronts 9' from the front wall and rears 6' from the rear wall. I ended up with the front tops at about 30 degrees and rear tops at 34 degrees, with about a 30 degree spread from the MLP. With these Magnepans the position is ambiguous but I use the center of the panel ... and note that mounted horizontal they spray a very high and wide dispersion pattern that easily covers all the seats on my couch without any off-axis falloff of high frequencies that in-ceiling mounted speakers would have. With them hanging as they are, I'll be able to shift them left or right several inches. Since the panels are dipoles, the angles direct the rear waves totally innocuously away from the listener and just add to room ambience. View AttachmentView AttachmentPlenty of tweaking and Dirac calibration to do today (as well as cleaning up tools and other debris!) ... and yes I'll dress the wires after I'm satisfied it's all dialed in. And also ... the tops are now spread more fore and aft, and I have these MMGWs that I had used as front tops .... should I consider center tops? Are you a lefty on drums? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2025 17:48:44 GMT -5
Over the past month I've had some circumstances that led me to revisit my tops. First, I helped out in The Listening Room's Atmos demo at CAF and we positioned the tops on some stands made from Magnepan larger speaker frames. This served as a way to get the tops up high, the fronts and surrounds mounted vertically, add bass traps and absorbers to the room (stands filled with rock wool) ... and a clever way to show the sizes of the Magnepan line. View AttachmentI was satisfied that the placement was good, and certainly better than other Atmos demos I have seen ... like when SVS goes to shows with a 5.1.2 system and puts the tops on the side walls left and right of MLP. I did a Dirac calibration in the room using their Primare SPA25 AVR which only had the 500Hz Dirac version, and also had a significant limitation in that it locked down channel levels trims. But in the end - at least the night before the show when I could sit and listen to a lot of content for an hour - I liked the sound and I especially appreciated how the tops sounded at that lower angle. Of course, next day when the show opened they boomed up the Perlisten subwoofers and IMO ... the sound was pretty terrible ... but that's Marketing, not Engineering ... So ... those four MC1 tops became available as they couldn't be sold as new, and the market for them is pretty small anyways ... so I got a deal! While waiting to pick them up I decided to upgrade amplifiers since I'd need a bit more power for these ... and also just to get consistent power around all my Magnepan peripheral speakers. Yesterday, with the help of a couple friends, I hung the four MC1 tops. I had been using Magnepan MMGW front tops and Polk rear tops at 45 degrees to the MLP which put them pretty high on my 8' ceiling. I decided to drop the MC1s lower, based on my experience in the CAF room and also some research and videos suggesting that with an 8' ceiling a lower angle would work better. Note that with a 10' or 12' ceiling, even 45 degrees can put the tops nearly at the front and back walls. But with an 8' ceiling 35 degrees still keeps them well onto the ceiling ... fronts 9' from the front wall and rears 6' from the rear wall. I ended up with the front tops at about 30 degrees and rear tops at 34 degrees, with about a 30 degree spread from the MLP. With these Magnepans the position is ambiguous but I use the center of the panel ... and note that mounted horizontal they spray a very high and wide dispersion pattern that easily covers all the seats on my couch without any off-axis falloff of high frequencies that in-ceiling mounted speakers would have. With them hanging as they are, I'll be able to shift them left or right several inches. Since the panels are dipoles, the angles direct the rear waves totally innocuously away from the listener and just add to room ambience. View AttachmentView AttachmentPlenty of tweaking and Dirac calibration to do today (as well as cleaning up tools and other debris!) ... and yes I'll dress the wires after I'm satisfied it's all dialed in. And also ... the tops are now spread more fore and aft, and I have these MMGWs that I had used as front tops .... should I consider center tops? Are you a lefty on drums? No but I see the photo is not clear ... here's a version of the kit before I turned it toward the wall. I've since put the 22" bass drum back in place of the adapted 16" floor tom. And the typical kit from the early 80's    |
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Apr 22, 2025 13:03:07 GMT -5
Are you a lefty on drums? No but I see the photo is not clear ... here's a version of the kit before I turned it toward the wall. I've since put the 22" bass drum back in place of the adapted 16" floor tom. And the typical kit from the early 80's View AttachmentView AttachmentSweet kit! Thanks for the clarification. Drum on brother  |
|
