Question for those that know (speaker config. and amplification)

[Deacon]

So I have updated the display and of course we all know the upgrade bug is usually not cured by just one purchase. Now I am hunting a new processor so I can enjoy all the new digital surround formats available.

I currently have a 7.1 config which I plan to keep but I am wondering if the atmos and other height (Ashleigh be damned) channels make enough of a difference over just 7.1 and can the height channels be virtually matrixed with an atmos decoding processor similar to how a center channel can be 'matrixed' out of the mains?

I could implement the front height channels with some bit of work, but it would also add complexity to the decision. I could get a 9. channel receiver that would power the height channels which would be easier but also cost more. Or I could get a 7. channel receiver and run it in a straight 7.1 config and add amp to power the height channel if I ever add it...

...and that leads to my next question. With a new receiver I will now have 2 sitting in a closet only relegated because of outdated processing, is there a way to use them as amps only?

For those that have height channels in play, how much of a difference does it make? Is it worth the significant increase in cost to get 9 channels of power opposed to 7?

 

[CMonster]

I currently have a 7.1 config which I plan to keep but I am wondering if the atmos and other height (Ashleigh be damned) channels make enough of a difference over just 7.1

I added a second set of height speakers to our current HT after about 1.5 years. I feel like the jump from 7.1.2 -> 7.1.4 was greater than 7.1 -> 7.1.2. I just watched Blade Runner 2049 the other day and it's one of the best Atmos soundtracks I've heard. I'll take some time over the next couple of days to rewatch some scenes in 7.1, 7.1.2, and 7.1.4 to see if I still feel the same.

can the height channels be virtually matrixed with an atmos decoding processor similar to how a center channel can be 'matrixed' out of the mains?

Atmos is an object-based sound mode where the engineer plots where in space a sound should appear. You have to height speakers for that to work properly for overhead sounds.
(Original answer when I misinterpreted the question: There's a Dolby Surround up-mixer (and potentially manufacturer-specific sound modes) that can steer content to the height speakers for non-Atmos sound tracks.)

...and that leads to my next question. With a new receiver I will now have 2 sitting in a closet only relegated because of outdated processing, is there a way to use them as amps only?

Probably not. They'd need to have an HT Bypass input/mode so that their volume control is taken out of the equation. Time to find an electronics recycler near you...

I could implement the front height channels with some bit of work, but it would also add complexity to the decision. I could get a 9. channel receiver that would power the height channels which would be easier but also cost more. Or I could get a 7. channel receiver and run it in a straight 7.1 config and add amp to power the height channel if I ever add it...

For those that have height channels in play, how much of a difference does it make? Is it worth the significant increase in cost to get 9 channels of power opposed to 7?

In my opinion, it's not worth upgrading to an Atmos setup if you can only do one pair of height speakers. That may change after I experiment a little bit (wish I would've thought to do that before typing out 90% of this reply .)

Another thing to keep in mind for a proper Atmos setup: the side and rear surround speakers should be at the same level as the front three speakers. If they're currently mounted high up on a wall, they'll need to be lowered.

 

[Deacon]

Thanks for that response, it is about exactly what I was wondering. I keep hearing that a 5.1.4 is a better sounding set up than 7.1.2 because the sound is more 3D. I'm pretty hard wired into 7.1 right now. It would be much easier for me to convert to 5.1.4 than 7.1.4 because I could convert the rear surrounds to rear height.

What would be most easy is adding 2 height channels to the already existing 7.1 set up but I don't like engaging in effort that will not pay off with adequate results.

 

[Flint]

Very generally - out listening mechanism isn't designed for instantly recognizing vertical placement of sounds. We can do it when a sound is repeated by turning our heads to the side, or tilting it more than a tiny amount, but we are designed to be very accurate at placing sounds in front of us on a horizontal plane. In nearly all cases, if we recognize a sound as something we should be hearing above us, such as a flock of ducks flying over and quacking to encourage the lead ducks in their fly-v formation, or if a helicopter is moving around, we will instinctively know it is above us without having to tilt our heads and try to pinpoint where such sounds are coming from.

That isn't to say we don't have the physiological ability to determine the vertical location of a sound, but it isn't a core, natural, strong skill at all similar to how we can pinpoint the location of a sound in our visual viewing range virtually instantaneously.

As such, ATMOS for overhead sound isn't ideal in a home situation. In large cinema theaters with 40 foot screens, height speakers make a ton of sense, which is why Dolby developed and released ATMOS in the first place. In home setups, it is a VERY rare room where those height speakers make much sense at all.

 

[Deacon]

But even if we are not naturally inclined to pinpoint sound above us there has to be some psychological effect of the larger sound field. Does this also mean height speakers need to run 'hot' in a system to make the most impact?

 

[Flint]

But even if we are not naturally inclined to pinpoint sound above us there has to be some psychological effect of the larger sound field. Does this also mean height speakers need to run 'hot' in a system to make the most impact?

This is the dilemma we face, just as we have to deal with it concerning subwoofers. The most natural performance from subs which most accurately resembles real life sounds is when the sub is not loud enough to stand out from the main speakers, but then we often feel we are not getting our money's worth (or are not justifying the effort) of having a state-of-the-art subwoofer. So, most people turn their subs up WAY too hot and thus hamper the accuracy of the system in reproducing what is most realistic and convincingly true.

It could also be logically stated that if the audibility of a height speaker is so low when tuned to be "perfectly natural and accurate to reality" that we have to turn them up unnaturally loud to ensure we know they are operating, then what are the benefits?

This also applies to surround systems with large numbers of discrete horizontal plane surround speakers, or anything we add which while the addition improves accuracy when tuned ideally, we don't clearly hear the addition unless we crank it up so we know it is active.

There is nothing wrong with adding height speakers and activating all the cool stuff ATMOS offers. I recommend discreet overhead speakers mounted where they are intended to be heard from if one chooses to go that path. But then, once perfectly tuned, I recommend not cranking up those height speakers to make it abundantly clear they are operating, as that isn't what they are intended to be used for 90% of the time.

 

[Deacon]

I agree which goes back to one of my original questions. Would the height and mains blend to the point where there is a 'matrixed' soundstage or would the height speakers be too localized and call attention to themselves in just a 7.1.2 set up?

I'm hoping this is what @CMonster could discern through his listening comparison.

 

[Flint]

Well, I've been lucky to get to spend time in the hot seat in small mixing rooms for TV and BluRay audio mastering and I did not feel especially enamored to the height channels in those "ideal" setups. However, in the huge cinema mixing facilities with 350 seats and a 50 foot screen, I was delighted by the effect of the height channel speakers. Comparing those ideal situations to the home theaters I've spent time in where the owners installed ATMOS channel speakers, the results were always unpleasant. They all deemed it necessary to make the height channels, like their subs, undeniably present at all times. It works for them, because they enjoy the audio roller coaster ride of heightened fight or flight instincts when extremely thrills which are not present in real life are created in their rooms. I don't judge, but that isn't my thing as I mostly only watch Movies or TV for the story telling.

 

[CMonster]

Okay, I'm going to stick with my opinion that adding height speakers is only worth it if you can do two pairs. When testing all three configs, there wasn't a huge difference in perception when the flying police car zipped by overhead. However, I watched a couple scenes where there were voices coming from above and with 7.1, that wasn't really conveyed. With 7.1.2, you could tell it was overhead, but as Gosling walked through, the voice seemed to stick to the same spot. With 7.1.4, these was an overhead panning effect as he walked, which was cool. Overall, though, there wasn't much difference between the three configs, and if I didn't have the height speakers, I'm not sure I'd miss them.

By the way, I level-checked all the speakers multiple times during the session and they were within a one dB window except for the sub, which was three dB hot. Also, I'm not sure it comes into play at all, but my ceiling height is 9.5'.

 

[Deacon]

Your results are about what I would have assumed although I thought the surround backs would be more 'active' to compensate for the absence of rear height channels.

So then here is the 54-dollar question, if you had a 7.1 and could only add front height channels (no back height channels) would you do it for the marginal advantage it seems to provide, or if you can't have the back height channels does that make the front height channels less advantageous?