Poll: What's your current Atmos speaker layout?

[marpow]

You should be getting excellent stereo imaging, depth, sound stage, etc with that configuration.

So the next question is, are those bass traps doing something to your room response other than smoothing out the bass? I would think not, but stranger things have happened.

I love the bass traps, wouldn't change them for $. Great investment, highly notable on day 1.

 

[zdjh22]

There are some reports on QQ indicating changing the channel map of quad files will reroute to rears in a 7.1 system. Have your tried that?

First, thank you so much for MMH. MMH to the rescue!

Yes, I have tried that. Unfortunately my Oppo 203, or my Denon, doesn’t handle channel maps on 5.1 or 7.1 flac files correctly, and I haven’t managed to consistently steer rear channels to the rear speakers. A while back on your MMH thread you provided a set of flac (or WAV, can’t recall) files that test various speaker configurations. Most of them don’t work played back directly on the Oppo (connected via HDMI to the Denon) or the Denon, although the one MP4 video file, a 7.1 demo from Dolby, does work. They all do work if played back via VLC from a Windows 10 laptop connected via HDMI to the Denon.

If I encode as TrueHD MP4, 5.1 and 7.1 indeed works from all sources (and presumably a 4.0 within either with phantom channels would work). However, all of my music is kept on my NAS’s as ISO images, and I’m not committed to taking everything apart and encoding as TrueHD. But yes, definitely changing the channel map within the right format will work. Maybe I just need to breakdown and add a small PC or SBC as a media player, and still keep the Oppo with mod’ed firmware for native DSD over HDMI.

I also have adventures with my Oppo and the Realiser A16. Sometimes 4.0’s digitized as MLP 4.0 files from Q8 or other original sources work, often they don’t. It turns out to be some HDMI issue between the two, as if I play an MLP 5.1 (say a Queen DVD-A) subsequent 4.0’s play fine.

(Sorry for all of the edits to this post - it’s tough to get the details correct without looking at notes.)

 

[MidiMagic]

Not true. Stereo mixes via the S&IC, TATE II and Sansui QS Surround or Involve have always sounded fantastic. Also 5.1 mixes which in reality are just quad with a centre speaker and sub, sound fine without either. Atmos down-mixes can sound very good or like shit it all depends. Thankfully 5.1 mixes are still often included as well just incase the Atmos downmix sounds bad.

I still can't get over that fact that four then six speakers were not enough. Keep adding more and more and the general public will finally bite. I think not. The people here are the exception. Dolby invented Atmos simply because their old patents were running out. They have a vested interest in pushing a new proprietary system. At least it is a current source of multichannel music so I'm not complaining.

I like what Jimfisheye is trying to do to separate Atmos from it's Dolby imprisonment!

They keep adding speakers to get rid of the cogging effect.

Not only do they want a proprietary system, but they are disowning their old proprietary system because they can't get stupid patent royalties for it.

Like when KFC discontinued the perfectly good spork when the patent expired, and replaced it with a piece of junk.

 

[zdjh22]

I found that same issue with my Oppo BDP103 as well. I have to use the side surround outputs as the back. It should be a simple matter for an AVR or a player (with analogue outputs) to be set up either way. With one set of speakers side or back sound should always be routed to whichever one is selected.

A work around would be to install a speaker switch so that you could swap speakers around. More thought should be placed in the development of this type of equipment not the one size (industry determined size) fits all. Playback options should be fully user programmable, and dependant on the source ie 4.0 vs Atmos.

Additionally when ripping (4.0/5.1) discs some produce back channel outputs and other side. In another thread I rant a bit about that, I was scratching my head for awhile as my computer is set to play back channels while some rips were coded as sides! Oddly everything (side or back) wants to play via the side outputs of the Oppo.

Note: I might have set my Oppo's up for side speakers when the back didn't work; both side and back 4.0 coded files now play, via the side outputs. SACD in DSD mode can not be remapped, that must have been the source of my side vs back problem, ultimately requiring the use of the side outputs.

I’ve thought about a speaker switch, just easier to configure the A16 to do it correctly over headphones (modulo the MLP 4.0 weirdness - don’t get me started on A16 firmware woes).

Very high end Denons allow you to assign the internal amplifier pairs to speaker pairs of your choice.

Alas as much as I love my Oppo and Oppo clone, the firmware is showing its age on edge cases.

 

[MidiMagic]

What I want to know is where I could hear an ATMOS system. The dealers we have left here are Walmart and Best Buy, and neither has a system we can listen to. Walmart has an ATMOS soundbar, but we can't hear it in the box.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

What I want to know is where I could hear an ATMOS system. The dealers we have left here are Walmart and Best Buy, and neither has a system we can listen to. Walmart has an ATMOS soundbar, but we can't hear it in the box.

Movie theater. Maybe you should think of it as a Music theater

 

[HomerJAU]

were the vote choices about listening on non-Atmos systems originally included in the poll,

I don't recall ever changing the poll choices and I was expecting many to be listening on their 5.1 systems.

 

[HomerJAU]

What I want to know is where I could hear an ATMOS system.

A local QQ member? Someone would welcome you I'm sure.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

They keep adding speakers to get rid of the cogging effect.

Not only do they want a proprietary system, but they are disowning their old proprietary system because they can't get stupid patent royalties for it.

Like when KFC discontinued the perfectly good spork when the patent expired, and replaced it with a piece of junk.

Only midi could connect ATMOS speaker set up with KFC spork. And cogging.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Duplicate deleted

 

[par4ken]

They keep adding speakers to get rid of the cogging effect.

Not only do they want a proprietary system, but they are disowning their old proprietary system because they can't get stupid patent royalties for it.

Like when KFC discontinued the perfectly good spork when the patent expired, and replaced it with a piece of junk.

I still don't think that "cogging" is really an issue, but adding side channels would certainly reduce it. The addition of the height dimension on the other hand would not help panning effects going around the room and might even have it's own "cogging" issues, requiring even more speakers above. Is it really important that bullets fly above your head smoothly while watching a movie? Sorry everyone about flogging the same issues but If I thought that we needed more channels and speakers I would prefer that they be placed around me not above. Will the next iteration of Altmos include bottom speakers?

What I want to know is where I could hear an ATMOS system. The dealers we have left here are Walmart and Best Buy, and neither has a system we can listen to. Walmart has an ATMOS soundbar, but we can't hear it in the box.

I hear you, there used to be audio dealers all over, it never was a problem in the past to audition equipement. Things become more difficult as audio systems become more and more complex and profit margins reduce. I was once told that if they opened the box to let me look at a unit that they would be forced to sell it cheaper as it is now used! Such bull, walk, no run away from such establishments! I would unlikely purchase any audio equipment from Walmart or even Best Buy anyway. Big box stores sell audio like they sell any other appliance. They won't let you cook on a stove before you buy it Sadly I guess that even a sound bar is no different.

I agree with Sonic, go to an Atmos equipped movie theatre or as HomerJAU suggested find a QQ member close to you with an Atmos setup. I would think that you should be able to find a dealer that is willing to at least demonstrate a sound bar!

 

[AYanguas]

I still don't think that "cogging" is really an issue,

It becomes an issue when the mixer tries to smoothly pan over a side of the room, where the sounds from different speakers mainly reach to one single human ear (if we don't turn our heads).

This, precisely, was one of the problems that led Dolby to develop, together with film studios, the Dolby Atmos system, as described in this white paper: Dolby Atmos® for the Home Theater October 2016:

https://professional.dolby.com/siteassets/tv/home/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-for-home-theater.pdf

There, they describe efforts to represent sound as realistically as possible, like the movement of objects outside the screen, such as a car appearing progressively from behind and to the side. It takes a lot of channels/speakers to reproduce it well, and the number of channels couldn't increase indefinitely, neither for cinema nor for a home version. So, they came up with the concept of Atmos Objects, whose rendering adapts to the existing number of speakers.

It's a solution developed for cinema, and now it's being used for music.

..., but adding side channels would certainly reduce it.

In my opinion, it's more accurate to say that historically, the channels added were the surround rears (Surround Back or Rears), instead of the Surrounds (sides) that already existed in 5.1.

After the Quadraphonic 4.0 music system almost disappeared from the market in the '80s, the rise of Home Cinema 5.1, a system for movies, allowed multichannel music reproduction. The Quad mixes from the '70s then played the rear channels through the only rear channels of the 5.1.

The Center Channel is an inheritance from cinema, used to center dialogues on the screen (to avoid the precedence effect for viewers on the sides). Multichannel music mixes naturally decided to use this Center channel for "dialogues," like in movies, i.e., the main voice of the singer. The result, as we know, is an isolated voice that is controversial when it comes to using the Center channel for music.

To fill the rear gap between the two "Surrounds" of the 5.1, a Rear Center channel emerged, giving rise to the "odd" 6.1 format. Almost immediately, the 7.1 format came about, "adding" two "Surround Back" speakers behind the existing "Surrounds" of the 5.1. This is where the existing "Surrounds" of the 5.1 were distributed a bit forward, and they began to be called "Sides." But they are still the same ones through which the rear channels of a Quad 4.0 mix come out.

In other words, 7.1 is for Cinema, but since it can also be used for multichannel music, a 5.1 or 4.0 mix still outputs the rear channels through the "Sides" Surrounds just as it always has.

The addition of the height dimension on the other hand would not help panning effects going around the room and might even have it's own "cogging" issues, requiring even more speakers above.

The "cogging" in the height location would be less than at the floor level because sounds from above are better received from both human ears than sounds from the lateral.

Is it really important that bullets fly above your head smoothly while watching a movie?

Yes, it is.

Not exactly bullets, that do not run smoothly, but other sounds above like raindrops at the roof, birds, tree leaves swaying in the wind, thunders, helicopters, planes... Too many different sounds are coming from above us in the real world. The objective of Dolby Atmos is to reproduce that to get more immersion.

Sorry everyone about flogging the same issues but If I thought that we needed more channels and speakers I would prefer that they be placed around me not above.

Is that your preference? Or is it that you are not able to install Ceiling Speakers?

As said before, to better reproduce what the human ear perceives, you need ceiling speakers.

Another consideration would be the fact that if you don't like musical representations featuring sounds from above and only prefer sounds around us, like musicians at our ground level. But we need to consider two things:

- The sonority of a hall where music is played passes through the echoes and reverberations that come from the ceiling. The way to represent this, with as much as fidelity as possible, is by using speakers in the ceiling.

- Artistic musical compositions can be developed that include sounds of instruments and voices coming from above and the upper corners. Why not? It's an additional artistic representation that some will like, and others won't, like abstract painting. For this, speakers in the ceiling are also needed.

Will the next iteration of Altmos include bottom speakers?

Well, the 360 Reality Audio already contemplates the placement of speakers below the usual front ones. The full 360RA design has the ones at ear level, the usual upper ones, and innovative lower ones located right on the floor, beneath the fronts.

It's the implementation of their native discrete speaker system, although for compatibility and market penetration requirements, mixes in 360RA can be played on Dolby Atmos speaker systems.

Maybe Dolby won't venture into this. They already have enough trying to globally penetrate Atmos as it is. Perhaps they will advance, and they should do it for their survival in Dolby Atmos Music, by developing more virtual effects to perceive better the different locations with rendering in binaural headphones.

 

[AYanguas]

... Am I not allowed to voice my opinion? Is my opinion less important than someone who selects headphones or soundbar? A few here think that they need to keep challenging me on my choice!

My Mono, Stereo, Quad, 5.1 and Atmos speaker layout is always the same 4.0! Why is it that some of you are not willing to accept that?

The tone with which some respond to you comes from your apparent discrediting of others' tastes or needs, and a certain criticism of the unnecessary "complexities" of Dolby Atmos and the entire industry developed around it.

If you don't like the art of music with sounds coming from all possible directions, including those from above the ceiling, and you prefer a more "traditional" listen, that's fine. You're within your rights, of course.

But those of us who greatly enjoy the new possibilities that Dolby Atmos offers and the push it aims to give to its system along with Apple, for the artistic reproduction of music in a new art format, are also within our rights.

I think we are more, on this forum, those who enjoy and want 7.1.4 or more, than those who tend to label a speaker count greater than 4.0 as unnecessary.

It's like if I commented in a sports/soccer forum that soccer as a sport is unnecessary with such a large field and so many players running like fools after a ball, not scoring a goal the whole match. That a smaller field, doing much better with hands than with feet, and basketball is enough and much better because they score many baskets every few minutes. That I don't need soccer, and it's unnecessary. What response could be expected from the members of that forum?

 

[FooBarFoo]

There are some reports on QQ indicating changing the channel map of quad files will reroute to rears in a 7.1 system. Have your tried that?

An approach that might be less work then re-encoding your content.- If you haven't done this already, consider NOT mounting your sides at 90 degrees to the MLP. At 110 or 120 deg, they will behave slightly more like rears in 5.1 and still sides for 7.1 If you look at Dolby's current guidance, they suggest this as well for 5.1 systems

https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/ab...-speakers-setup/5_1_virtual_speaker_setup.pdf
Even for 7.1(and .2 /.4), they suggest sides be mounted between 90-110 deg from screen (I actually moved mine from 90 (side) to 115 (to the side and slightly behind MLP), and honestly prefer it- it's a good compromise for quad and 5.1, without degrading Atmos playback.

Not sure if I shared my system- 7.2.4

Denon avr-x6700
Definitive Tech BP2000TL (L/R)
Definitive Tech CLR 3000 (center)
B&W FPM6 (sides and rears)
B&W FPM2 (ceiling front and back)
Starke SW15 (x2)

the fronts and the sides match surprisingly well- the center has a slight timbre shift that I have tamed with Audyssey.

@marpow - I seriously suggest grabbing a PC and a mic to look at your acoustics and applying some EQ to tame the high end.

Better yet, if you know what specific frequencies bother you (likely requires a trip to the audiologist) then just use an EQ to lower the specific ones until acceptable, so you don't have to roll off everything up top. You will still get that B&W sound without need for a major upgrade.

 

[inspclouseau]

I still don't think that "cogging" is really an issue, but adding side channels would certainly reduce it. The addition of the height dimension on the other hand would not help panning effects going around the room and might even have it's own "cogging" issues, requiring even more speakers above. Is it really important that bullets fly above your head smoothly while watching a movie? Sorry everyone about flogging the same issues but If I thought that we needed more channels and speakers I would prefer that they be placed around me not above. Will the next iteration of Altmos include bottom speakers?

I hear you, there used to be audio dealers all over, it never was a problem in the past to audition equipement. Things become more difficult as audio systems become more and more complex and profit margins reduce. I was once told that if they opened the box to let me look at a unit that they would be forced to sell it cheaper as it is now used! Such bull, walk, no run away from such establishments! I would unlikely purchase any audio equipment from Walmart or even Best Buy anyway. Big box stores sell audio like they sell any other appliance. They won't let you cook on a stove before you buy it Sadly I guess that even a sound bar is no different.

I agree with Sonic, go to an Atmos equipped movie theatre or as HomerJAU suggested find a QQ member close to you with an Atmos setup. I would think that you should be able to find a dealer that is willing to at least demonstrate a sound bar!

"I agree with Sonic, go to an Atmos equipped movie theatre or as HomerJAU suggested find a QQ member close to you with an Atmos setup. I would think that you should be able to find a dealer that is willing to at least demonstrate a sound bar!" This cracked me up... everything's just down the street..

 

[madscot]

I wonder whether we could have a thread dedicated to members willing to allow others to come and listen to their atmos system. I would volunteer, we could put our nearest town/city for those nearby to contact, obviously not giving out too much info for safety?

 

[mandrix]

"I agree with Sonic, go to an Atmos equipped movie theatre or as HomerJAU suggested find a QQ member close to you with an Atmos setup. I would think that you should be able to find a dealer that is willing to at least demonstrate a sound bar!" This cracked me up... everything's just down the street..

Well sound advice, but I concur with your thoughts. I mean it's not like I would have to travel to the end of the world, maybe 85-100 miles to see a movie in Atmos or find an audio dealer, but still....

I got into Atmos quite by accident, really. But as someone who immediately jumped into Quad without ever having heard it, I just "knew" it was going to be good.
The foray into Atmos occurred because of problems with a 7.1 AVR that was replaced by the manufacturer with one that could decode Atmos, and that was 5.1.2 capable (still have it).
Eventually a QQ member and friend suggested that I might be able to use two AVR's, Windows, and the ASIO4ALL app and create a 7.1.4 system for Atmos. I did. That was enough for me to make the leap to a 7.1.4 AVR and I've been quite happy with that decision.

 

[par4ken]

In other words, 7.1 is for Cinema, but since it can also be used for multichannel music, a 5.1 or 4.0 mix still outputs the rear channels through the "Sides" Surrounds just as it always has.

This is compounded by confusion between not only back and side but surround! The "back" channels are sometimes referred to as surround. Other times as back. The quadio discs when ripped produce L,R and side outputs! Side and Surround are not the same and are easily confused!

Open matrix mixer in Foobar and you will see that after C and lfe we have BL and BR. Those have always played as the quad back channels for me. In Adobe Audition 3, Surround mixer those same B channels are referred to as "Surround" SL, SR. Checking properties of a coded wav file from Audition (flac files don't display that information) we see files coded as BL and BR!

Actual "Side", SL and SR appear much farther down the list.

 

[mandrix]

This is compounded by confusion between not only back and side but surround! The "back" channels are sometimes referred to as surround. Other times as back. The quadio discs when ripped produce L,R and side outputs! Side and Surround are not the same and are easily confused!

Open matrix mixer in Foobar and you will see that after C and lfe we have BL and BR. Those have always played as the quad back channels for me. In Adobe Audition 3, Surround mixer those same B channels are referred to as "Surround" SL, SR. Checking properties of a coded wav file from Audition (flac files don't display that information) we see files coded as BL and BR!

Actual "Side", SL and SR appear much farther down the list.

View attachment 99837

Agreed in toto. When I import an 8 or greater wav file into Audition, setting up the sound properties after an absence always baffles me until I work at it a bit.,

 

[jimfisheye]

There was a blunder with the Ls/Rs channels in 5.1 vs the Lrs/Rrs in 7.1. There were to be two formats for 5.1... 5.1 side and 5.1 rear. 5.1 side was to translate to the Ls/Rs in 5.1 mapping to Lss/Rss in 7.1. Rear was to map to the rears. People started using the 5.1 side format but as 5.1 rear for some reason. Then software "corrected" for that (ie. botched it). Now we have the channel faux pas between them. And it's screwed! Too many releases with the technically wrong file header and too many flawed media player apps with the "correction". (Like VLC player that everyone uses and is considered a standard.)

I have two speaker manager choices to click on now to handle this. 7.1.4 vs everything else. Stereo works on either of course. That means I have to click on the right one and that also means no mixing 7.1.4 Atmos tracks with quad or 5.1 in the same playlist for shuffle play. Which feels like a bit of a regression in 2023...

The leading thing here is the mix format. It is what it is and I want to hear it. I'm not about to compromise speaker positions for a workaround. So... dueling speaker management.

I read some of the complaints around this and people treating some of this like a show stopper. I can't help to think about the encoded quad formats from the '70s and the absolutely epic engineering chops any consumer had to have to even get started with them! We're handed lossless discrete surround audio now and everyone has gotten soft or something.