• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Dolby Atmos Speakers

Haywood

Haywood

Well-Known Member
Famous
I've been looking around at Dolby Atmos speakers that bounce the sound off the ceiling instead of requiring in-ceiling speakers. This interest is partly driven by the fact that I live in a rental and probably will for the foreseeable future. What I found surprised me. The only companies I can find that make speakers specifically designed for this seem to be Definitive Technology, Klipsch and Pioneer. I would have thought more companies would have products in this area.
 
I'm not actually in the market yet. It was more a curiosity that so few vendors had product. Those KEFs look beautiful. I haven't heard any of their products lately, but I always liked them in the past. If I have around $8000 to drop on an upgrade, this might be a good candidate. Sadly, I am currently burning through more than $6000/mo in savings while I look for work. I say sadly, because it limits my home theater budget. Priorities, people. Priorities. :biggrin:
 
Remember the physics... Most great speakers are not extremely directional. Moderately sized cone midrange speakers and soft done tweeters have we wide dispersion angle. They are not ideal for this sort of thing. Instaed, you need very directional speakers, like horns and large diaphragm mid-range drivers.

Also, the tone of the reflected sound will inherently be different than the direct tone.


So, what's the point?

This concept was tried with normal surround sound and it failed to succeed. I don't think it should succeed with Atmos either.
 
I noticed Auro3D uses small Genlec active monitor speakers for height channels in one of their studio mixing rooms. Mounted at the ceiling level.
 
Last edited:
Actually, most of these speakers work quite well, and more manufacturers are getting on board. Stay away from the Onkyo offerings as I've heard nothing good about them.

I have the Klipsch models and after a bit of adjusting, they do work. Probably not as well as ceiling mounted speakers, but when you can't go that route, these will do the job. And if you have a receiver that does DTS:X, it makes a big difference in adding to the immersive sound experience.
 
I recently got to hear a demo setup by a local retailer of the top end Klipsch system. It was interesting, for sure, but I didn't like the lack of definition and smeary-ness of the ATMOS addition. What I heard was a more engulfing coverage of sound, indeed that is what was promised, but it lacked any sense of realism as there was no directional accuracy to any of it. Instead, it was like the old PC games which would add room noise to the soundtrack when you are in a custom house --- just random murmuring and clinking of glasses apparently coming from absolutely anywhere except in front of you. An illusion of random noise coming from virtually anywhere wasn't what I would look for.

I have heard demos of the massive multi-speaker setups in mixing studios in Burbank using discrete channel speakers placed above, below, and all around. In one demo the sound of a distant jet was added to a soundtrack and that jet passed clearly over your head and off into the distance in the front left with such realism it added to the illusion of actually being in the scene where the camera was centered. Likewise, a scene shot in first person of a guy running frantically through the Venice Beach area with the soundfield being accurately captured and reproduced was nerve-wracking and engaging. I felt I was the person running through the area, clearly frightened, and as realistic as possible.

These new directional throw speakers cannot reproduce any of those things realistically. Sure, if the goal is to watch the world cup and have the fully engulfing sound of audience noise washing over you from every angle, these speakers can offer that. But if you want an intensely realistic action scene with clearly defined gunshots, or car sounds coming from all around, above, and below you, they cannot come close to offering that.

To me this is a first step in getting people to buy in on the concept of ATMOS. Few people would be willing to mount more speakers high on their walls or in their ceilings in addition to the 7 speakers they already have. So, instead they get people to accept the notion that the effect of many more speakers is necessary today. Then, when people start realizing it makes more sense to add more speakers, they will start doing so. It could take a few years, but they will do it. We had the same thing happen with early surround systems and this appears to be the same experience.
 
Yeah. I'm not interested in the Atmos speakers that bounce sound off the ceiling. Once I'm in a position to replace my pre/pro with an Atmos enabled model I will definitely be adding in/on ceiling speakers.
 
For sure in ceiling is the way to go, but some people can't do that. For me there was no way to get into the part of the attic where the speakers would go. I had two a/v companies out to the house and they both just shook their heads when they saw how little space was there and how many obstacles were in the way already (a/c duct work and some other odd things).

Next house I'm going to build and pre-wire everything before and have a dedicated room just for my setup. But right now, the upfiring setup works just fine.

You can always give them a try, and if you don't like them, they are easy to return. That was my thinking when I bought them.
 
The question is this... is ATMOS so incredibly good that bouncing sound is worth an added expense to a system, or, should one pass on ATMOS until discrete speakers are a possibility?

Being a purist, I would not bother until I am prepared to add matching speakers in the most ideal locations.

This same dilemma is applicable to surround in general. Would I rather spend $1,000 on a pair of stereo speakers that sound amazing for music and miss out on the surround sound experience, or would I prefer to spend $1,000 on seven ATMOS bouncing surround speakers which will be below average for music but offer an enveloping surround experience?

For me the answer is simple - better speakers, better sound, greater enjoyment of music.

For others having all the surround stuff is most important even if it comes at a cost to clean, tight, punchy, dynamic, clear, and accurate reproduction.
 
I had 7.2 surround already. 6 Klipsch RB75s and the center speaker and 2 HSU subs. Adding 2 sets of Klipsch atmos speakers didn't compromise the sound of either music or surround sound for movies. You don't need seven atmos bouncing surrounds speakers (actually you can only add 2 pair on my system).

On a side note, I watched Superman Man of Steel 4K last night with Atmos. Compared to the regular BD, the sound was nothing short of amazing.
 
Flint said:
The question is this... is ATMOS so incredibly good that bouncing sound is worth an added expense to a system, or, should one pass on ATMOS until discrete speakers are a possibility?

For others having all the surround stuff is most important even if it comes at a cost to clean, tight, punchy, dynamic, clear, and accurate reproduction.
Click to expand...

There is middle ground and that's what I'm looking for. I don't use my theater space for much music listening and in fact I don't know all that many who do. Of course there are audiophiles amoung us who sit in the sweet spot and spend an hour or two on a regular basis just listening. But I'd wager my paycheck that most of us with dedicated theaters do far more watching than listening. I listen in the car, at my desk at work, on headphones while exercising or working in the yard. I'll play music on the patio while hanging outside or through the house (thank you Sonos) while doing chores.

That doesn't mean that I don't want clean, tight, punchy, dynamic, clear and accurate in the theater. But I have to balance that desire with the added cost of all the surround stuff. That means I'll have to budget a little more for the speakers package AND be willing to compromise a little on the desire for fully matched high-end surrounds.

You'd rather spend $1,000 on an awesome stereo pair and not have surround.
I'd rather spend $800 on a really good stereo pair and $400 on pretty good surrounds.
 
I definitely don't want to do a speaker upgrade that results in a smeary mess. I would rather just wait the few years until I buy a house and have the space to do a dedicated room and then go nuts.
 
elfstone said:
I had 7.2 surround already. 6 Klipsch RB75s and the center speaker and 2 HSU subs. Adding 2 sets of Klipsch atmos speakers didn't compromise the sound of either music or surround sound for movies. You don't need seven atmos bouncing surrounds speakers (actually you can only add 2 pair on my system).

On a side note, I watched Superman Man of Steel 4K last night with Atmos. Compared to the regular BD, the sound was nothing short of amazing.
Click to expand...
How do you generate two distinct LFE channels?

I have multiple subs (understatement) in my main HT, but none of my sources, nor my Onkyo 886 pre/pro, presents anything more than a single LFE channel. It's still "only" a 7.1 system even with all the subs.

Should I ever go the Atmos (or whatever the current craze is at the time) route, I do have room to add additional speakers in pretty much any location - including behind the screen. But because 40% of the walls/ceiling surface is covered in acoustic panels, they will need to be direct, rather than reflecting. I'm thinking something like the Realistic Minimus 7 (or similar) would be easy to mount / aim - as well as having an ok ability to relatively-faithfully reproduce what's needed - for a very low cost. And given that I've got two extra pairs of black ones (with mounting brackets) kicking around already...

Alternatively I've often wondered whether there's much acoustic (timbre, mid to upper frequencies) similarity between the old Koss M series of small speakers, and the floor standing Koss CM series which I use in my main HT. The dome tweeters look very similar (although the CM series add a plastic diffuser) and the CM's mids look very similar to the M's "woofer." I've been meaning to buy a pair of M65Plus (typically $50) just for shits and giggles to see how they sound. The higher-numbered M series speakers start to get too big (relative to the "cozy" size of the Realistic Minimus 7.)

Jeff
 
JeffMackwood said:
Alternatively I've often wondered whether there's much acoustic (timbre, mid to upper frequencies) similarity between the old Koss M series of small speakers, and the floor standing Koss CM series which I use in my main HT. The dome tweeters look very similar (although the CM series add a plastic diffuser) and the CM's mids look very similar to the M's "woofer." I've been meaning to buy a pair of M65Plus (typically $50) just for shits and giggles to see how they sound. The higher-numbered M series speakers start to get too big (relative to the "cozy" size of the Realistic Minimus 7.)

Jeff
Click to expand...

I loved that old Koss bookshelf speaker!!!

That said, for a rig like yours, I imagine a well placed EQ properly tuned would be sufficient to get a close enough timber match to get great sounding additional channels (as long as the smaller speakers play loud and clear). The trick is to get the range from about 200Hz to 8,000Hz to have a similar balance.
 
Towen7 said:
I'm fairly sure he meant to say he's running a 7.1.4 setup and is splitting the LFE to two separate subs. I'm also fairly sure that you knew that. :wink:
Click to expand...
I was fairly sure as well - having never seen such a set-up before. But that doesn't mean that it's beyond the creative imagination and capability of some AA members.

Your "7.1.4 setup" drew me to the Dolby page http://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/dolby-atmos-speaker-setup/7-1-4-setups.html

Clicking on the "2" - ceiling setup - gives a bit of a surprising (at least to me) suggested placement for the ceiling speakers. I could manage it in my main HT very easily.

Jeff
 
Flint said:
I loved that old Koss bookshelf speaker!!!

That said, for a rig like yours, I imagine a well placed EQ properly tuned would be sufficient to get a close enough timber match to get great sounding additional channels (as long as the smaller speakers play loud and clear). The trick is to get the range from about 200Hz to 8,000Hz to have a similar balance.
Click to expand...
The use of an EQ had not crossed my mind. Neat suggestion.

I was thinking along the exact same lines as you in terms of important frequency range - which is why something small (like the Realistic or Koss) came to mind. The "loud and clear" is the trickier part. My experience with the Realistic is that they can handle "reasonable" levels but I've never wanted to push them beyond that for fear of damaging them. As I said, I have no experience with the Koss, which is why it would be fun to get a pair and push them a bit.

Jeff
 
elfstone said:
Jeff the Denon 4200 has two sub pre outs.


https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/receivers/avrx4200w
7.2 Channel Full 4K Ultra HD AV Receiver with 9.2 channel processing, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth®, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, HDCP2.2/HDR, MultEQ XT32, 8/3 HDMI In/Out, AL24 plus
Click to expand...
Interesting!

That looks like one heck of a receiver.

However, and this might be more than a matter of pedantic semantics (to paraphrase words spoken in another thread) I'm wondering about Denon's use of "7.2 channel." Especially being a proponent of multiple subs.

I (and I guess others - like Towen7) distinguish between the number of subs used, and the number of discrete LFE channels. The ability to connect two subs (as a convenience feature), where those subs receive the same signal, does not, in my mind, take a system from a 7.1 to a 7.2. All its doing is moving from an external user-supplied "Y" adapter to a receiver-provided internal one. However, if those sub outputs were distinct, and could carry independently different signals, then I would bestow the 7.2 label.

An example would be where the room correction software could vary, independently, the level and response of each sub output, in order to better smooth out the room response using two subs. (I do this in my main HT through the use of different subs (inherently different responses), each with independent level control, placed in different locations. A less elegant brute-force approach. But since I'm starting with the same 7.1 sources and my Onkyo still only provides a 7.1 output capability (after which I split like crazy to feed multiple subs their bass-managed signal / LFE) I still refer to the overall system as 7.1-capable.

I've looked through the Denon's owner's manual and spec sheets, and while they extol the virtues of running dual subs in order to smooth out the bass response within the room, it does not appear that, for example, its Audyssey system is treating the LFE as two independent channels and using them thus for room correction. So I take (a bit of an) issue with their use of the 7.2 designation, rather than what I think should be 7.1 in this case.

(I note that when specifying its Dolby Atmos capabilities it uses 5.1.4 and 7.1.2 - which seems spot on. But that raises the question as to where did that extra LFE channel go? Does it get lost in an Atmos set-up (with one sub output going silent), or is it just a tacit admission that there really is only a single LFE channel (as opposed to connection) regardless of configuration.)

Do I get the pedantic semantics award of the day?

:)

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top