How you like Atmos? 😋

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I've wondered how in ceiling speakers compare to cabinet speakers mounted on the ceiling/wall. I like the directionality aspect of mounting cabinet speakers aimed at the sweet spot, but never heard any Atmos system but my own. I don't have an opinion on how the in ceiling speakers work out, simply because I've never heard them in an Atmos setup.
Dolby specs using wide angle dispersion speakers for heights for in-ceiling. Still in spec at a 45 deg angle. Otherwise they spec using cabinets aimed at the sweet spot.

If you have a DAW app and can do basics, you can pull up a joystick panner. Play a test tone or something and pan it around the room. If your speaker placement and calibrations are on point with phantom imaging working and everything, you will hear a smooth pan around the room. You don't want to hear hot spots or dropouts. And you want that consistently across the frequency spectrum. Just a few tricks with some test tones and you can get analytical with your system and nail it down.
 
I did my first Atmos config using 4 small speakers I had left over from my computer rooms
sound system up north. It was a Klipsch HD 500 that included wall mounts for the speakers that
I could use to ceiling mount. Worked pretty well but they were very loudness limited with only a 2 1/2" woofer and my arrangement wasn't ideal. Photo also shows my old HSU HB-1 speaker based system.
Later I came across a like-new set of 4 SVS Elevations for sale on a good deal and upgraded to them. This photo also shows my speaker upgrade to JBL HDI-3600's in all 4 corners and a HDI-4500 center.
IMG_2690.JPG


IMG_3148.JPG
 
For years I had my audio set up in the approx 13 ft x 13 ft living room. As I said a few times I'm sure, a few weeks before my wife retired I moved all the audio gear I cared about into a bedroom, 8.5 ft x 12.5 ft.
Preserve the peace, listen when I want to, all that stuff.
At that time I had a 5.1.2 system. Since moving the gear I bought a new AVR and went 7.1.4. (well at first I had a frankenstein system of two AVR's for 7.1.4 using a pc, ASIO4ALL & the Dolby Reference Player).
Not the ideal room, which is why I keep mentioning Dirac Live. It and some judicious fiddling made this weird room work.
 
IMG_0858.JPG


IMG_0845.JPG


I've become a huge fan of Atmos since the most recent (and major) revision of our 2.1/5.1 dual duty big rig incorporated the addition of 4 overhead Atmos/DTS-X overhead channels a few years ago. I'm a bit obsessive when it comes to the enthusiast pursuits I'm most keen about. So beforehand I sunk a lot of time into both online and in-person research (at high-end AV boutiques) before reaching a decision on how to best implement an overhead 4 speaker Atmos set-up.

Here are a few observations I made and conclusions I arrived at based upon all that research:

1) The reflective ceiling bounce Atmos speaker modules you plop onto the tops of your bed loudspeakers are really disappointing when compared to any decently implemented ceiling mounted speaker setup... And when compared to a truly optimized ceiling mount Atmos speaker setup, those ceiling bounce modules are flat out embarassing!

2) When you do the math (specifically working out the optimal listening axis geometry between overhead channels and the MLP- Main Listener Position), there are a couple of hard truths you discover about what sorts of Atmos ceiling loudspeaker implementations work properly for a given room. When it comes to using flush mount in-ceiling speakers for Atmos overheads, they simply won't work properly for more than a two ceiling speaker setup unless you have REALLY high ceilings. Once you have 4 overhead channels, each mounted at the Dolby recommended optimal angle and location vs the bed loudspeakers and MLP, the listening seat will be nowhere near the optimal listening axis of those flush mounted in-ceiling speakers. Listeners are far enough off the optimal listening axis that the upper midrange and high frequency output of the in-ceiling speakers will be significantly rolled off. Even those flush mount models with adjustable tweeter angle typically will not have enough range of adjustment to compensate unless you have a REALLY high ceiling. So the moral of this particular story is that either a surface mounted overhead speaker with a significantly angled front baffle or better yet, a conventional box loudspeaker securely hung from the ceiling on highly adjustable brackets is the way to go for 4 or more overhead Atmos channels.

3) Some AV hobbyists and social media/youtube AV pundits claim that having Atmos ceiling channels which are brand matched and voiced to pair well with your bed loudspeakers totally doesn't matter. I strongly disagree! The recording engineer will seldom place Atmos sound objects directly at/in a particular overhead speaker. Sound objects are typically panned to locate them at a place in space between loudspeakers. And that sound object location is just as likely to be a vertical pan between a bed speaker and the nearest overhead speaker as it is to be a horizontal pan between two overhead speakers. So if the same guy told you, "Just use any old mismatched combination of bed loudspeakers, don't even worry about matched stereo pairs," would you believe him??? Matched pairs of speakers will cast a solid stereo image. Mismatched pairs of speakers do not.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 104192

View attachment 104193

I've become a huge fan of Atmos since the most recent (and major) revision of our 2.1/5.1 dual duty big rig incorporated the addition of 4 overhead Atmos/DTS-X overhead channels a few years ago. I'm a bit obsessive when it comes to the enthusiast pursuits I'm most keen about. So beforehand I sunk a lot of time into both online and in-person research (at high-end AV boutiques) before reaching a decision on how to best implement an overhead 4 speaker Atmos set-up.

Here are a few observations I made and conclusions I arrived at based upon all that research:

1) The reflective ceiling bounce Atmos speaker modules you plop onto the tops of your bed loudspeakers are really disappointing when compared to any decently implemented ceiling mounted speaker setup... And when compared to a truly optimized ceiling mount Atmos speaker setup, those ceiling bounce modules are flat out embarassing!

2) When you do the math (specifically working out the optimal listening axis geometry between overhead channels and the MLP- Main Listener Position), there are a couple of hard truths you discover about what sorts of Atmos ceiling loudspeaker implementations work properly for a given room. When it comes to using flush mount in-ceiling speakers for Atmos overheads, they simply won't work properly for more than a two ceiling speaker setup unless you have REALLY high ceilings. Once you have 4 overhead channels, each mounted at the Dolby recommended optimal angle and location vs the bed loudspeakers and MLP, the listening seat will be nowhere near the optimal listening axis of those flush mounted in-ceiling speakers. Listeners are far enough off the optimal listening axis that the upper midrange and high frequency output of the in-ceiling speakers will be significantly rolled off. Even those flush mount models with adjustable tweeter angle typically will not have enough range of adjustment to compensate unless you have a REALLY high ceiling. So the moral of this particular story is that either a surface mounted overhead speaker with a significantly angled front baffle or better yet, a conventional box loudspeaker securely hung from the ceiling on highly adjustable brackets is the way to go for 4 or more overhead Atmos channels.

3) Some AV hobbyists and social media/youtube AV pundits claim that having Atmos ceiling channels which are brand matched and voiced to pair well with your bed loudspeakers totally doesn't matter. I strongly disagree! The recording engineer will seldom place Atmos sound objects directly at/in a particular overhead speaker. Sound objects are typically panned to locate them at place in space between loudspeakers. And that sound object location is just as likely to be a vertical pan between a bed speaker and the nearest overhead speaker as it is to be a horizontal pan between two overhead speakers. So if the same guy told you, "Just us any old mismatched combination of bed loudspeakers, don't even worry about matched stereo pairs," would you believe him??? Matched pairs of speakers will cast a solid stereo image. Mismatched pairs of speakers will not.
Well. If I was flush with money, I would do things differently. My base 5 speakers are matched, and my 4 overheads are matched.
The rear surrounds are the outliers.
We all do what we can; but while I believe that what you say may be optimal, it's not necessary to enjoy the Atmos experience. I think while your observations are worthwhile, I think it puts off people that want to take the plunge into Atmos, thinking they must spend mega money to satisfy some lofty goal instead of just enjoying what they can afford.
As far as pundits on YouTube, who cares. Opinions are a dime a dozen and clickbait.
 
Last edited:
It's an endless process and in a few years height speakers won't be enough anymore and they will want us to install speakers (at least 2 of course) on our balcony too, to improve overall lifelike sound
 
I want to suggest that the constant comments about room treatment and speaker matching aren't so much gatekeeping as excitement to share advice that had bigger bang for the buck than was expected or intuitive.

Aside: The reason we do some old school things in mixes...
eg. pair of speakers coupled in mono for kick drum, some sounds placed directly in a speaker channel and then a reflection placed directly in another speaker channel
... is to give those with wild systems and no imaging ability at least something to chew on! (You're welcome!)

A mix comes alive with matched/calibrated speakers. It's like the whole background of a picture blurred otherwise. Speaking in absolutes here but this is a thing.
 
I want to suggest that the constant comments about room treatment and speaker matching aren't so much gatekeeping as excitement to share advice that had bigger bang for the buck than was expected or intuitive.

Aside: The reason we do some old school things in mixes...
eg. pair of speakers coupled in mono for kick drum, some sounds placed directly in a speaker channel and then a reflection placed directly in another speaker channel
... is to give those with wild systems and no imaging ability at least something to chew on! (You're welcome!)

A mix comes alive with matched/calibrated speakers. It's like the whole background of a picture blurred otherwise. Speaking in absolutes here but this is a thing.
I get it. But many people aren't going to buy 11 or more matched speakers. Way it is. People should not let that scare them away from Atmos especially when dollars are at a premium.
Happiness for me I learned to be satisfied with what I can afford. Just like I no longer drive a high performance car, just can't afford it any more.
 
It's an endless process and in a few years height speakers won't be enough anymore and they will want us to install speakers (at least 2 of course) on our balcony too, to improve overall lifelike sound
I've never fallen far behind the latest TOTL playback codec's.
I wasn't disappointed in Quad, 5.1, Atmos or Auro so,
I'll probably get on that train when/if it comes also.

(if I'm still alive.)
:p
 
Still really happy with my 7.1 setup with 3 or 4 subwoofers depending on whether I am listening to music or watching a movie. In fact movies for instance sound way better at home than they do at the AMC which has ATMOS. My receiver is capable of ATMOS so I am getting the 7.1 version of all ATMOS tracks.
 
Last edited:
I've never fallen far behind the latest TOTL playback codec's.
I wasn't disappointed in Quad, 5.1, Atmos or Auro so,
I'll probably get on that train when/if it comes also.

(if I'm still alive.)
:p
I “early adopted” SQ quad with limited funds, then it died for thirty years. I got a laser disc player as soon as one was available, and LD died in less than ten years. I still don’t have UHD except a fer discs that rode along with 3D (oh, yeah, how’s that going?) releases.
 
I “early adopted” SQ quad with limited funds, then it died for thirty years. I got a laser disc player as soon as one was available, and LD died in less than ten years. I still don’t have UHD except a fer discs that rode along with 3D (oh, yeah, how’s that going?) releases.
Why does any of that matter?
I've enjoyed what was offered thru each era and look at Quads comeback now.
Beautiful music all. ;)
 
Back
Top