Atmos vs 5.1

[LuvMyQuad]

SWT's diagram is my speaker layout as well About 100 degrees for the rears.

 

[Guy Robinson]

But also a lot of this comes from cinema use, and there in 5.1 the surrounds really are along the sides of the room.

This is the way that my 7.1 system is set up. The surrounds are beside where I am sitting up the wall and the rears are behind me to the side. When I play 5.1 the surrounds are duplicated into the rear speakers making everything sound great when the mix is correct. The 5.1 is enveloping and the 7.1 from ATMOS also sounds great. I'm generally a happy camper.

 

[Thonolan]

SWT's diagram is my speaker layout as well About 100 degrees for the rears.

Same here, about 100 degrees too.

 

[mandrix]

I'm not happy with some AVR's playing DTS-HD 5.1 to whatever speaker configuration you have. When I asked Onkyo about it, they said that's the way my AVR is designed. Got 7(.1) base speakers? Then that's the playback you get from DTS-HD 5.1. It only disturbs me inasmuch as the AVR taking control.
I can of course listen in "Direct Mode", and get true 5.1 playback in this case, but that removes my 13 point Dirac Live calibrations except I believe for the speaker distances.
Since I primarily listen with software players in Windows, I DO have the option to set the sound applet as 5.1, 7.1, or Dolby Home Theater (either 7.1 or Dolby Home Theater work fine for Atmos).
I have a 7.1.4 setup in a smallish rectangular room so by necessity my surrounds are at 90* to my listening position, and my rear surrounds are basically where one would place them for a Quad setup.

 

[Thonolan]

This is the way that my 7.1 system is set up. The surrounds are beside where I am sitting up the wall and the rears are behind me to the side. When I play 5.1 the surrounds are duplicated into the rear speakers making everything sound great when the mix is correct. The 5.1 is enveloping and the 7.1 from ATMOS also sounds great. I'm generally a happy camper.

So would you say that having the surrounds content duplicated into the rear speakers makes the overall 5.1 mix sound even better? I always have the impression that it would sound somewhat muddier, and that getting the sound only from a single pair of speakers (whether it's the surrounds or the rears) would make it sound cleaner.

 

[jimfisheye]

Equal distant speakers is still quite important in a listening space. You can use delays to dial in the timing for a sweet spot. It's a crafty trick. The problem is that doing that reduces the listening to only the sweet spot! Any other location in the room will be time smeared. When you walk up to a speaker in a equal distance setup, you hear delay from distance to the other channels just like real life perspective of proximity. Do that with a time skewed system dialed in for a single sweet spot and things get weird.

Just another example where using passive techniques instead of relying on some DSP heavy lifting can go a long way.

If you are only ever in a sweet spot in a small listening space... carry on!

110 deg rears for me too. All equal distant to the listening position including the heights. By the book with that.

 

[Owen Smith]

The original 5.1 speaker layout from the early 2000's placed the rear speakers a lot further behind the listeners head...

Indeed it did. On the rear wall behind the listener was recommended using dipole or bipole speakers that spread the sound to either side of the speaker. You don't see those much any more.

Here are my 5.0 system's rear speakers on wall brackets laid on their backs firing at the ceiling above the sofa. These are Castle Richmond 3s which are rear ported so avoid boom off the ceiling:

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Indeed it did. On the rear wall behind the listener was recommended using dipole or bipole speakers that spread the sound to either side of the speaker. You don't see those much any more.

Four corner 5.1 placement worked great for movies of the day that were in pro logic. Not so much for music unless it's old school quad.

I've read several comments on this board with members saying they are dissatisfied with modern mixes when played on a 4 corner setup. Still they are convinced it's the mix and not the speaker layout.

 

[mandrix]

Equal distant speakers is still quite important in a listening space. You can use delays to dial in the timing for a sweet spot. It's a crafty trick. The problem is that doing that reduces the listening to only the sweet spot! Any other location in the room will be time smeared. When you walk up to a speaker in a equal distance setup, you hear delay from distance to the other channels just like real life perspective of proximity. Do that with a time skewed system dialed in for a single sweet spot and things get weird.

Just another example where using passive techniques instead of relying on some DSP heavy lifting can go a long way.

If you are only ever in a sweet spot in a small listening space... carry on!

110 deg rears for me too. All equal distant to the listening position including the heights. By the book with that.

Yes you've stated that many times. We can't all do that. But my mlp is one spot only so there's that.

 

[Guy Robinson]

So would you say that having the surrounds content duplicated into the rear speakers makes the overall 5.1 mix sound even better? I always have the impression that it would sound somewhat muddier, and that getting the sound only from a single pair of speakers (whether it's the surrounds or the rears) would make it sound cleaner.

I would definitely say that. No change to the sound being muddier at all. I actually had a a' WOW' moment when I hooked up my new AVR and found the surrounds being duplicated into the rears automatically for 5.1 mixes. Before this, I was actually creating my own files that duplicated the surrounds into the rears creating a 7.1 mix from a 5.1 mix. Now I no longer have to do that. All my speakers are approximately the same distance from my main listening position.

 

[jimfisheye]

Yes you've stated that many times. We can't all do that. But my mlp is one spot only so there's that.

The "carry on, then" part was for you then.

Don't take it as a snobby admonition. It's a setup strategy that has a lot of bang for the buck. It's mentioned because it's not just an obvious intuitive tip. (Until you know in hindsight anyway.) I just see these casual comments... "Oh, just adjust the delays. It doesn't matter. The AVR has these controls. Just start turning stuff on!" Sometimes more passive strategies do some heavy lifting better.

I'll try to make an example with a turntable. You've heard the result of an off center hole in a vinyl record? Speed ramping up and down cartoonishly. Pretty altering! So... Let's crank up the speed correction DSP! Silly right? It would take moving the mountain with that and you'd create more artifacts than you started off with. Or... just grab a hole file and put the thing back to center. The 2nd great pyramid looks taller because it's built on a hill, right?

But you absolutely can dial in delays for a single sweet spot. If that's the setup in a very small space, then carry on with that! But if you have something weird going on and had not considered any of this, it might be a frugal way to upgrade things.

 

[barfle]

My first “room” (the living room in my bachelor pad 50 years ago) had the sofa against the wall, and speakers sitting on end tables. Balance was an aftterthought.

My second room had the sofa somewhat in the middle of the room, with speakers a bit behind the PLP. Today, I have two rows of seats, 5.1 with the speakers about 3’ behind the second row.

I always felt that the only way to be surrounded is to have speakers in front and behind you. The idea of having the “rears” only being “sides” was never in the equations I used.

In my current (and I hope, last) room, I barely considered side speakers. There’s cable run to an approximate location, but really, there’s no place I can put side speakers.

 

[Sal1950]

Indeed it did. On the rear wall behind the listener was recommended using dipole or bipole speakers that spread the sound to either side of the speaker. You don't see those much any more.

I had a 5.1 system like that back in the mid 80s. I used three Paradigm Titans across the front and 2 of their dipole/bipoles? mounted high on the side walls a few feet behind the MLP (which was mid room). I was never too happy with that system for doing surround, the rears just didn't seem to put together a proper image either with music or movies. Here's my ebay sales photo.

 

[Sal1950]

I always felt that the only way to be surrounded is to have speakers in front and behind you. The idea of having the “rears” only being “sides” was never in the equations I used.

That's a reasonable assumption, but very much depending on what the setup was at the mixing console and the how production image was voiced.
But still many of us just have to deal with our listening room and the positioning options allowed.

 

[barfle]

That's a reasonable assumption, but very much depending on what the setup was at the mixing console and the how production image was voiced.
But still many of us just have to deal with our listening room and the positioning options allowed.

Of course, the ideal reproduction system mimics the mixing room’s setup. Clearly, if there are more than one seat in the listening room, that won’t happen.

Maybe, just maybe, if I had given it much thought, I would have made room for sides when I was figuring out my space. But as the seating is virtually against one wall, it’s going to be quite a problem with balance, especially for the seat with a speaker 6” from your right ear. So I probably won’t bother.

I do have ceiling speakers, though. They’re just not doing anything at the moment.

 

[MidiMagic]

There is no shortage of Dolby Surround or Dolby PLII decoders available on the used market so what is the problem? While I hear what you are saying you can't expect old technology to be carried over forever. I would bitch more about no SQ and QS decoders being included in modern equipment. Stick to vintage!

Why can't we? If the recordings exist, the system should handle them.

They want you to replace all of your old recordings with new ones - and they get more royalties.

It's like software on computers. Some of the companies think that anything ten years old or older no longer exists.

 

[MidiMagic]

5.1 speaker layout was not intended to be like Quad with the listener equal distant from all 4 speakers
"Rear" speakers in 5.1 are intended to be to the side or just slightly behind the MLP.
Only for 7.1 are the "Rears" pushed way to the rear, and "Side" surrounds are now in the approx same position as the "Rears" used to be in 5.1.

Dolby surround (original) and Pro Logic DO work with the back speakers behind you or to the sides.

Original quad works better with you sitting between the back speakers, because it removes the cogging problem - but you don't hear anything behind you.

 

[Bill B]

Why can't we? If the recording exist, the system should handle them.

They want you to replace all of your old recordings with new ones - and they get more royalties.

I would say it’s a matter of demand vs the additional costs of adding that capability. If only one out of a thousand (or ten-thousand) probable purchasers care about that capability then it isn’t worth it to the manufacturer to include it.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just common sense. Would it make sense for someone to start producing record players that can handle wax cylinders?

 

[MidiMagic]

There is no shortage of Dolby Surround or Dolby PLII decoders available on the used market so what is the problem? While I hear what you are saying you can't expect old technology to be carried over forever. I would bitch more about no SQ and QS decoders being included in modern equipment. Stick to vintage!

Eventually the parts in those old decoders (QS, SQ, and DS) age and quit working, and many of them can't be had now.

I am close to getting TWO SMs.

 

[MidiMagic]

I would say it’s a matter of demand vs the additional costs of adding that capability. If only one out of a thousand (or ten-thousand) probable purchasers care about that capability then it isn’t worth it to the manufacturer to include it.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just common sense. Would it make sense for someone to start producing record players that can handle wax cylinders?

No, but most of them still have the 78 rpm speed - compatibility back to 1895.