|
|
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 markc 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. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl 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
|
|
