Thanks for answering my question Matthew, I appreciate it. Since I have started using front heights at 30°, I'm finding that its able to resolve objects along the front stage better. They image above the fronts at the top of the screen (using a flat panel) rather than closer to the audience. Seems to add detail/resolution to the front stage. Since adding Top-Middles to the equation, its significantly improved the overhead images which is what I remember from having 5.1.2, but now I have all that resolution on the front stage and the rear heights help flyovers continue past the audience in a more realistic manner. But yeah, Dolby seems to really be focused on the Top/ceiling area where the other formats all seemed to focus on heights. I do a lot of upmixing using Neural-X and Auro3D, so thats one of the reasons I wanted to try heights and I like it. I think adding Top-Middles is a good solution for people like myself who are implementing hybrid format setups. If focusing on Atmos though, yeah the Top/ceiling channel mounting is probably your best bet.
You should check out the video done by Technodad on the Atmos programming. Dolby moved their speakers not for optimal placement but following a legal battle.
I think use case is important. Most people setting this up themselves are doing it in a smaller room. Dolby allows for a 40 degree angle which aligns with heights and you can use heights in a Dolby setup in say a Denon. In a smaller room if you added both they'd be next to each other physically, which is pointless. So the right setup for 6 Atmos on a cheap avr is heights front and back and tops middle if your ceiling is high enough to accommodate it. Otherwise you have to use tops because you can't use heights. The angle is what matters. Object sounds are object sounds. If the sound engineer wants the listener to hear a noise from the top left of the room then EVERY seat should hear that sound from the top left of the room. A Dolby setup on a cheaper avr isn't capable of doing this for further left seats as the top middle left speaker is above and to the right of that seat. I find the Trinnov guide for speaker placement the best. But that's spatial based audio where they can use multiple speakers at once to form virtual speakers.
I just wonder about the practicality for most people that have only 8 foot ceilings. The side and back surrounds are already elevated so the person sitting next to you doesn't block the sound. So since the surround speakers are already approaching the ceiling (especially in 2 row home theaters) how would you even fit another pair of surround speakers above the bed layer let alone be able to differentiate the 2 point sources that are right on top of another? I like the idea of the DTS:X 3 layer system but I think Atmos is just way more practical for the vast majority of people. Hopefully front wides become more common on newer AVRs, and hopefully DSU will let you upmix all non-wide material including Atmos and DTS:X
I am using 3-layer system. Front heights at 30°, Rear heights at 150° and Top-Middle (kind of surround heights, but labelled Top-Middle) at 100° directly overhead, exactly between my two rows of seating. My ceiling is only 7.5 feet high. There's very little separation between the front and rear heights and their ear-level counterparts. I still gain distinct height effects from those channels. When sounds are fully discrete in those channels, there's no mistaking where it comes from. As for my Top-Middles, sounds from those just straight up come from overhead. The beginning of Man of Steel when the Kryptonian ships use their P.A. system straight up sounds like a singular Voice of God right on top of me. Zero issues there. One major benefit is the ability of the height channels to work with their lower level counterparts to make very tall images. When it makes a wall of sound, it really fills the soundstage in that area.
@@trauma50disaster1yes, DTS:X-Pro has three layers. The Bed-layer, a Height-layer (which are the default 7.1.4 in DTS:X mixes) and a 5 channel Top/Overhead layer.....Top-Fronts, Top-Rear and a single Voice of God in between them. DTS:X-Pro also supports Surround Heights and Top-Middle but treats those locations as interchangable.
Matt, if mixers are following this Dolby cutve for music like you suggest, it could explain why a lot of spatial audio music is too bass heavy. I often have to turn my sub level down 3db for.most mixes to sound proper.
Seems to me channel count above 7.1.4 is totally dependent on room size. Like, a 12'x15'x8' space would be fine with 5.1.4, and in practical terms would not have room for more. But a 18'x25'x10' space could make good use of 9.1.6.
A couple years ago I went 9.8.10 with 2 avr's. I use a Sony 7000 for atmos and auro3D upmixer with a Denon 3800. I love the VOG and it gives me chills, so the top 3rd layer is great for me.
@@gbye007its called "Scatmos". The methodology is a bit too complicated to go into here but you would use the second receiver as an amplifer for the additional speakers and use an upmixer with the second receiver like Pro Logic 2 to implent additional channels that can be steered to and treated as more channels. Apparently it works quite well. There's threads dedicated to it on AVS Forums. I never heard of using Auro to derive additional channels. I would imagine it would be good at making arrays.
I have a copy of Twister that includes Auro and Atmos. I think DTSX is best. More compatible with whatever speaker positions you give it, even if unconventional.
DTS:X works best with height channels though. Front and rear (or surround) heights. If you have Top channels, DTS:X tries to image them at the height position by playing through the Tops and the nearest ear level speaker. If you label your speakers as heights, DTS:X will then play them discretely from those channels.
@FURognar That is good to know if true. Not sure it is though. Perhaps if we are talking strictly DTS:X, and not DTS:X Pro, that could be correct. But I think DTS:X Pro has both height and top speaker position options so should react differently than you suggest. But a lot of the time we are talking neural upmixing, which works a lot better in the tops than Dolby Surround which only does stereo upmixing in all the tops together I believe. This all could be wrong.
Have you tried both heights and tops at the same time? I feel thats the best solution. The three-layer approach that Matthew mentioned. Thats what I implemented in my room.
@@brucecarter6205 yeah in a living room thats tough to do. When my system was in a living room, I was stuck at 5.2.2. But I finally was able to set up a dedicated room and went to 7.2.4 and recently added the 3rd pair of heights for 7.2.6.
Matt, As usual an amazing and informative video. I very much appreciate your objectivity. You do well to explain your reasoning for why speakers are placed, but reserve its possible that heights might sound better under the right conditions. 😊
the big issue is the actual content being missing. Yes, movies are mostly mastered with Atmos which sounds great at the theater. But that is not the same mix in atmos blurays or streaming services. Those are labeled atmos, but the atmos content is puny. Want to try? Play your favorite atmos movie and disconnect all other speakrs except for atmos speakers. Almost no content. The case for using the height channel, is using that setup with the auro upmixer, which does a better job than native atmos for home mixes.
Hi Matthew, Turbine made the movie Twister in both Atmos and Auro 3d on bluray that you could buy. The Atmos isn't as good as the new 4k atmos mix that just came out but it may work.
Looking through my blurays, I see a lot of DTS-Master Audio (corrected from dts-x) as the primary sound mix... Less Atmos, infact only a handful. Especially since Bluray can only support 8-Channels of pcm audio... Atmos over streaming is just compressed Dolby Digital...
Thats one of the reasons I like to use upmixing.....a vast, vast majority of discs out there dont even have Atmos. And when they dont, I use Neural-X or Auro3D to upmix.....and both of those work better with height channels.
@@manitoublack What do you mean with 'proper' Atmos? There's plenty of Blu-rays with Atmos, but I think they're mostly 4K UHD blu-rays (Technically still Blu-ray though.)
I am not sure what you are saying. Atmos is the dominant track on UHD discs. As well as on Kaleidescape. They both use lossless compression. And remember that the dynamic objects are able to be rendered on up to 34 channels.
I have a DENON x4800h, with a 5.2.4 set up. My room would not allow m to fit 6 height speakers BUT i could pull off top front / top height / rear height. However, I dont see a way to do this in the processor. The in ceilings are cut in for top height / rear height measurements. I could add the top front and then change my top height to middle height? Not sure if that would be an improvement or not. As the speaker would still physically be around 55 degrees in front of my MLP vs. directly overhead as the middle. Any advice?
Hi Matthew, just fyi, your last couple videos and this one, seem to have some sort of auto focus or focus breathing with your camera which has very weird pulsing effects. Great info as always but the pulsating makes them hard to watch.
That isn’t an option because I can’t focus on myself if I am not sitting down. It appears my fairly new lens is broken. It’s not a setting problem. I was using identical settings, location, and lighting. I came back from CEDIA and it started.
@@FURognar I agree. Thats not research though. I run 4 tops using the dolby diagrams but this conversation is interesting so how many people were in the research study, when did it take place, what were the angles of the speakers, how did they control for speaker placement etc.
Great vid Matt. Each to their own as you say, but hopefully the last time you need to explain the industries perspective on this issue. It would help if other content creators on this platform stop supplying info on this issue that suits their narrative but not necessarily the intent of the content that we all consume.
I agree 100%. There are a couple RUclipsrs out there who are always pushing the height approach. They somehow feel more qualified to give advice on the subject than the engineers who actually created the format.🤦♂️
@@stevenlawrence2232 whats wrong with having the discussion? Some people might like heights better, others like Tops better. You wont know which you like better if the perception is there is only one way to do it. Plus the other formats straight up work better with heights. So people who might be inclined to use multiple formats should be informed that its okay to use heights with Atmos.
@@FURognarNothing wrong with having a discussion and trying out different scenarios. Nothing to do with what I was saying. People are getting confused about the various approaches and which is correct. The Dolby way is the correct way for their format. That’s not to say that people can’t experiment with their own speaker placements, just don’t try to pass it off as correct.
@@FURognar fair enough I guess. I've tried both. I preferred the Anthony Grimani / home theatre gurus approach. For me that FAR out performed for both native and upmixers of Atmos and dtsx good quality bookshelf heights in top corners, sides or the most expensive upfiring speakers on the market (kefs). I'm lucky in that I did on ceilings in order to experiment. Not everyone can do that WAF factor to deal with and so on. Sometimes its in ceilings or nothing. What annoys the poo out of me about the self proclaimed experts on RUclips on this subject is that when doing in ceilings you've only got one shot at getting the placement right. Someone following them takes that self proclaimed advice and doesn't like it, that's it. their done - or it's an expensive fix. On that basis wouldn't it be more sensible to listen to those that either install for a living or, as Matt and others like audioholics have substantiated, mix the Blu rays we listen to?
I went from Heights to Tops on my 7.1.4 system and I can't say I heard a bit difference. But in my small HT the top made more sense as the angles of the heights was too close to my bed layer speakers.
Question, what would you call too close to bed layer, I have 12 speakers coming in next week and im debating on mounting to ceiling or above bed layer.
@@carlosh8113 If you ook at various videos and the dolby specs, they recommend a certain number of degrees from MLP to each speaker (horizontally and vertically). So If your ceiling is fairly low (like mine) then the number of degrees vertically from fronts to front heights is fairly small so I went with tops instead. the audio seperation is pretty close and likely wouldn't notice the difference but I got a great deal on used Monoprice in ceiling tops so I went with it.
Thats what the Dolby diagrams show, but many designers prefer to bring them closer to improve overhead imaging. And I also suspect to overcome poor off-axis response of in-ceiling speakers. Using an aimed bookshelf speaker on an articulated mount solves the issue and the imaging is just fine. Its just not as pretty.
Let's just say amiable speakers would end this controversy... Pre Dolby the Yamaha DSP-1 Professional I installed in my Venue in the late 80s had a test mode called swirl passed a voice around the space in a direction you programmed. Initial delays and decays handled the rest all along with a 3 band EQ on each Channel Dolby did make home theater mixes until 95... It's amazing how the monetized such a simple technology
Yeah I just mount bookshelf speakers on articulated mounts and aim them right at my listening position. So my 30° Front and Rear heights sound just fine because of the precise aiming.
My Marantz AV 10 only doesn't support wides with 8 channel heights. And it automatically turns on and off the internal relay for it. You can do 9.1.6 no problem. It's center height and voice of god that require the electrical relay and those only work in IMAX Enhanced and Auro-3D.
@@FURognar They _should_ be supported in DTS:X Pro, but they're not. I don't have front wides, so it's not that. I even tried faking it by reassigning the front wide channels (without the relay) to center height and top surround, but it still didn't work. Imagine my surprise after setting up 8 speakers only to realize the little content I had that supported them was even fewer.
Even worse, I later found out that Windows only supports 7.1.4 using the Spacial Audio API with no upmixing available even when outputting via Atmos and DTS:X. It has to do switch the fact that the Spatial Audio API outputs PCM audio over HDMI using those protocols (rather than regular PCM like native 8-channel audio), and the limitation of HDMI audio bandwidth restricts your total channel count. It's pretty bad. Here I was thinking I'd setup 8 height channels for _something_ and found out they were worthless...
@@Saturn2888 yeah, Denon and Marantz are famous for that, starting with the X8500H where it had 15.2 pre-outs but could only ever process 13.2 at one time. They continued this with both the Denon A1H and the Marantz AV10, where they have more pre-outs than they can process so you can hook up alternate formats and switch between them. Its very easy for people to get confused thinking it can process that number of channels. Very few processors can handle more than 6 heights. I think the only ones that can do 8 or 10 at once are Storm and Trinnov.
You do make a lot of sense on this one - it's all mixed in Dolby Atmos setup studios. I think front heights sound great to make an expansive front stage. However, I agree that the 4 X Dolby tops are probably a great comprimise, because they deliver much more locatable/realistic overhead onjects like rain and choppers, and aliens (A Quiet Place).
Yes, they make for a very tall soundstage. They do that "wall of sound" effect perfectly when matched up that way. If you want strong overhead effects, you can always upgrade to a 13 or 15 channel model and install Top-Middles, which is what I have done. So I get the tall soundstage AND the overhead effects at the same time.
@@FURognar Yes, good suggestion. I think that's the best layout. My AVR 'only' does 4 height/top channels. I'd need to upgrade to a much more expensive AVR. Might eventually do that.
Auro 3D with its dual layers and ”voice of god” is a better system than atmos in how its done. But its a mute point since auro isnt used.. Interesting DTS X Pro is quite similar to Auro with its 3 layers. But again its not really mixed as it seems. Dts:x is really inferior to atmos. The surrounds are much too ”hot”. Perhaps the reason is its remixed from atmos? Regarding movies with both auro 3d and atmos there were plenty made here in europe. Blade runner 2049, original twister, black panther, transformers etc. Getting hold of a disc might prove difficult though
I don't understand how people are arguing preferences and citing "research" as in some dude listened and stated his preference. There's nothing scientific about this. Then we say "artists intention" and i always ask, which artist? The director? The writer? The sound engineer? The person make gun shot sound effects using things that aren't guns to replicate a gun shot because that sounds better in a movie vs actually using a gun shot. Excuse me as I finish watching John Wick on my ipad in the airport. This appeal to authority is lame and unsubstantiated in these situations.
There's an interesting video on this ruclips.net/video/DWjZZwIe71w/видео.html at 4:11 - inherently, the problem is more that Dolby Atmos matrixing is not sophisticated enough to make the sound appear to come from the location indicated by the person using the monitoring software. One thing he mentions I don't agree with: I don't think this differs between AVRs, otheriwse better matrixing would be in the Dolby spec and you would be able to benchmark it between AVRs.
What matrixing are you specifically referring to and what makes you or them think this is true? Let’s again go back to how it’s monitored. These effects are sent to the tops in a nearfield mixing room that has the tops directly overhead at the angles specified in the pro setup guide. The mixer is then moving the objects the way they intend while monitoring on a 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 system. If it’s an older studio it may even be monitored on a 5.1.2 system. They then can do real time rendering to check the positions and often a 9.1.6 or 7.1.4 system is used for that. That means the engineers would hear what they intended on a speaker setup similar to what we have. So what matrixing are you talking about?
@@PoesAcoustics Did you watch the Dolby Atmos test video file linked in the description? So what happens if you try to make a sound come from right above the screen or right above the mains? You get a directly overhead sound played. It did when I listened to the demo file. Why isn't Dolby Atmos applying some sort of psychoaccoustics to make sounds appear to come from the location indicated in the tooling used by the mixers (for example by sending some material out of the mains in addition to the overheads all the way at the top)? I think some other technologies like Sony's 3D audio technology or probably some other formats), are doing what Dolby Atmos isn't. I do recognize that for most content it won't matter because as you mention the mixing engineer is likely using overheads so he will just not assume there are front heights and not try to do this in the first place.
@@xavdeman I think you still are not understanding me. Stop looking at the visual. It’s an aid. It is not meant to be taken so literally. This was what the Dolby engineers and mix engineers told us when we asked. They mix by what they hear. Not by what the little visual aid depicts. As for the psychoacoustic aid. They do. All overhead objects have an HRTF correction applies. It’s a dynamic correction that changes with position to mimic the sound of panning objects.
One more thing to add. The visual in the apple tool may not be as accurate as the visual in protools. Professionals use protools. It’s ubiquitous in the Hollywood level of industry. Apples Logic Pro is used by Indy artists and amateurs as it’s way less expensive.
This is a great question, and I keep learning as I watch Matthew's and others' videos. I get confused however, when I see videos like the one from Techno Dad and what he says seems to make a lot of sense. Can anyone shine some light on the disconnect between both approaches? ruclips.net/video/4CNneY6JtTU/видео.html
@@brucecarter6205 Technodad does mix his own music in Atmos, so its not like he's completely clueless. He works in the industry. It was working with Atmos music that started him down this rabbit hole.
The Dolby manual are the most useless recommendation there is and to me just pointless. There are so many variations of them. Dolby Atmos is not the same as it was when it came out by having ceiling speakers. Most of the manuals show the physical height speakers in the ceiling. So Dolby Atmos has a ceiling bias placement. All of the floor stand speakers have speakers projected sound aiming at the ceilings. There is one set of speaker placement on the wall and not very high up to project down the voice of God effect. Dolby wants Dolby Atmos to be in nightclubs and in cars. In headphones. So it is somewhat stupid that Dolby doesn't have manuals for height speakers for the wall locations. It's either ceiling speakers or virtual height speakers. Yeah if you rent or live in an apartment good luck with getting those ceiling speakers mounted in. I have a Vizio M5.1.2 with Dolby Atmos with 2 upfiring speakers. I have 1 Vivio 5.1 that does virtual Dolby Atmos. I like how Auro 3D has speaker placements that have different height levels. My Satellite speakers are all on the same surround channel with left and right but the way I have it is to project more sound at me. On my floor are 2 subs, behind the TV is my Vizio 5.1.2 Soundbar, above that are 2 vertical aligned surrounds, and above that and to the right is my Vizio M5.1 soundbar. It's almost like an Aura 3D setup. With speakers placed at different heights. None of this in the Dolby Manuals which has all surround speakers at a horizontal level.
Thanks for answering my question Matthew, I appreciate it.
Since I have started using front heights at 30°, I'm finding that its able to resolve objects along the front stage better. They image above the fronts at the top of the screen (using a flat panel) rather than closer to the audience. Seems to add detail/resolution to the front stage.
Since adding Top-Middles to the equation, its significantly improved the overhead images which is what I remember from having 5.1.2, but now I have all that resolution on the front stage and the rear heights help flyovers continue past the audience in a more realistic manner.
But yeah, Dolby seems to really be focused on the Top/ceiling area where the other formats all seemed to focus on heights. I do a lot of upmixing using Neural-X and Auro3D, so thats one of the reasons I wanted to try heights and I like it. I think adding Top-Middles is a good solution for people like myself who are implementing hybrid format setups.
If focusing on Atmos though, yeah the Top/ceiling channel mounting is probably your best bet.
You should check out the video done by Technodad on the Atmos programming. Dolby moved their speakers not for optimal placement but following a legal battle.
I think use case is important. Most people setting this up themselves are doing it in a smaller room. Dolby allows for a 40 degree angle which aligns with heights and you can use heights in a Dolby setup in say a Denon. In a smaller room if you added both they'd be next to each other physically, which is pointless. So the right setup for 6 Atmos on a cheap avr is heights front and back and tops middle if your ceiling is high enough to accommodate it. Otherwise you have to use tops because you can't use heights. The angle is what matters.
Object sounds are object sounds. If the sound engineer wants the listener to hear a noise from the top left of the room then EVERY seat should hear that sound from the top left of the room. A Dolby setup on a cheaper avr isn't capable of doing this for further left seats as the top middle left speaker is above and to the right of that seat.
I find the Trinnov guide for speaker placement the best. But that's spatial based audio where they can use multiple speakers at once to form virtual speakers.
I just wonder about the practicality for most people that have only 8 foot ceilings. The side and back surrounds are already elevated so the person sitting next to you doesn't block the sound. So since the surround speakers are already approaching the ceiling (especially in 2 row home theaters) how would you even fit another pair of surround speakers above the bed layer let alone be able to differentiate the 2 point sources that are right on top of another? I like the idea of the DTS:X 3 layer system but I think Atmos is just way more practical for the vast majority of people. Hopefully front wides become more common on newer AVRs, and hopefully DSU will let you upmix all non-wide material including Atmos and DTS:X
I don't know that dtsx has 3 layers. But I know auro3d upmixer does, I use the VOG and it great for me.
I am using 3-layer system. Front heights at 30°, Rear heights at 150° and Top-Middle (kind of surround heights, but labelled Top-Middle) at 100° directly overhead, exactly between my two rows of seating.
My ceiling is only 7.5 feet high. There's very little separation between the front and rear heights and their ear-level counterparts.
I still gain distinct height effects from those channels. When sounds are fully discrete in those channels, there's no mistaking where it comes from. As for my Top-Middles, sounds from those just straight up come from overhead. The beginning of Man of Steel when the Kryptonian ships use their P.A. system straight up sounds like a singular Voice of God right on top of me. Zero issues there.
One major benefit is the ability of the height channels to work with their lower level counterparts to make very tall images. When it makes a wall of sound, it really fills the soundstage in that area.
@@trauma50disaster1yes, DTS:X-Pro has three layers. The Bed-layer, a Height-layer (which are the default 7.1.4 in DTS:X mixes) and a 5 channel Top/Overhead layer.....Top-Fronts, Top-Rear and a single Voice of God in between them.
DTS:X-Pro also supports Surround Heights and Top-Middle but treats those locations as interchangable.
Matt, if mixers are following this Dolby cutve for music like you suggest, it could explain why a lot of spatial audio music is too bass heavy. I often have to turn my sub level down 3db for.most mixes to sound proper.
Seems to me channel count above 7.1.4 is totally dependent on room size. Like, a 12'x15'x8' space would be fine with 5.1.4, and in practical terms would not have room for more. But a 18'x25'x10' space could make good use of 9.1.6.
A couple years ago I went 9.8.10 with 2 avr's. I use a Sony 7000 for atmos and auro3D upmixer with a Denon 3800. I love the VOG and it gives me chills, so the top 3rd layer is great for me.
How do you get the HDMI signal to both AVRs? Any issues syncing the two AVRs together?
@@gbye007its called "Scatmos". The methodology is a bit too complicated to go into here but you would use the second receiver as an amplifer for the additional speakers and use an upmixer with the second receiver like Pro Logic 2 to implent additional channels that can be steered to and treated as more channels.
Apparently it works quite well. There's threads dedicated to it on AVS Forums. I never heard of using Auro to derive additional channels. I would imagine it would be good at making arrays.
@@gbye007 just send the the hdmi via "out," to the denon. No issues syncing. I also experimented with 2 denon 3800's and that worked too.
I have a copy of Twister that includes Auro and Atmos. I think DTSX is best. More compatible with whatever speaker positions you give it, even if unconventional.
DTS:X works best with height channels though. Front and rear (or surround) heights.
If you have Top channels, DTS:X tries to image them at the height position by playing through the Tops and the nearest ear level speaker. If you label your speakers as heights, DTS:X will then play them discretely from those channels.
@FURognar That is good to know if true. Not sure it is though. Perhaps if we are talking strictly DTS:X, and not DTS:X Pro, that could be correct. But I think DTS:X Pro has both height and top speaker position options so should react differently than you suggest. But a lot of the time we are talking neural upmixing, which works a lot better in the tops than Dolby Surround which only does stereo upmixing in all the tops together I believe. This all could be wrong.
I have had both heights and tops in my current room. Tops are by far the more effective solution ime. It’s not close.
Have you tried both heights and tops at the same time? I feel thats the best solution.
The three-layer approach that Matthew mentioned. Thats what I implemented in my room.
@@FURognarthat sounds interesting for sure. Not sure how practical it is for my living room setup though. Maybe for a dedicated HT.
@@brucecarter6205 yeah in a living room thats tough to do. When my system was in a living room, I was stuck at 5.2.2. But I finally was able to set up a dedicated room and went to 7.2.4 and recently added the 3rd pair of heights for 7.2.6.
Matt,
As usual an amazing and informative video. I very much appreciate your objectivity. You do well to explain your reasoning for why speakers are placed, but reserve its possible that heights might sound better under the right conditions.
😊
the big issue is the actual content being missing. Yes, movies are mostly mastered with Atmos which sounds great at the theater. But that is not the same mix in atmos blurays or streaming services. Those are labeled atmos, but the atmos content is puny. Want to try? Play your favorite atmos movie and disconnect all other speakrs except for atmos speakers. Almost no content. The case for using the height channel, is using that setup with the auro upmixer, which does a better job than native atmos for home mixes.
Hi Matthew, Turbine made the movie Twister in both Atmos and Auro 3d on bluray that you could buy. The Atmos isn't as good as the new 4k atmos mix that just came out but it may work.
Interestingly the Denon A1H swaps the top speakers to front top mid and VOG when in IMAX dtsx mode
Even my 6700h will present heights by default when setting channels
Great insights Matt. Thanks a lot.
Looking through my blurays, I see a lot of DTS-Master Audio (corrected from dts-x) as the primary sound mix... Less Atmos, infact only a handful. Especially since Bluray can only support 8-Channels of pcm audio...
Atmos over streaming is just compressed Dolby Digital...
Blu-rays have mostly DTS-HD Master soundtracks (not DTS-X)
@@buraksunter718 stand corrected, indeed 7.1 master audio.
Point being if not on Bluray where are you going to get proper atmos
Thats one of the reasons I like to use upmixing.....a vast, vast majority of discs out there dont even have Atmos. And when they dont, I use Neural-X or Auro3D to upmix.....and both of those work better with height channels.
@@manitoublack What do you mean with 'proper' Atmos?
There's plenty of Blu-rays with Atmos, but I think they're mostly 4K UHD blu-rays (Technically still Blu-ray though.)
I am not sure what you are saying. Atmos is the dominant track on UHD discs. As well as on Kaleidescape. They both use lossless compression. And remember that the dynamic objects are able to be rendered on up to 34 channels.
I have a DENON x4800h, with a 5.2.4 set up. My room would not allow m to fit 6 height speakers BUT i could pull off top front / top height / rear height. However, I dont see a way to do this in the processor. The in ceilings are cut in for top height / rear height measurements. I could add the top front and then change my top height to middle height? Not sure if that would be an improvement or not. As the speaker would still physically be around 55 degrees in front of my MLP vs. directly overhead as the middle. Any advice?
Hi Matt, your wireless mic doesn't sound great. Not terrible, just makes the sound a bit muffled.
I am not investing in a better wireless mic than the dji or rhode. Sorry.
@@PoesAcoustics Maybe the reception is the problem? Perhaps an old bluetooth stack on the laptop? Or it's applying some filter/eq?
Hi Matthew, just fyi, your last couple videos and this one, seem to have some sort of auto focus or focus breathing with your camera which has very weird pulsing effects. Great info as always but the pulsating makes them hard to watch.
I already told him. It drives me insane.
He needs to set focus manually and disable the autofocus.
Guys its almost like a podcast, you don't have to look :)
That isn’t an option because I can’t focus on myself if I am not sitting down.
It appears my fairly new lens is broken. It’s not a setting problem. I was using identical settings, location, and lighting. I came back from CEDIA and it started.
@@PoesAcoustics Thanks for the explanation. If it's out of your control, at least for now, I think I can power through. Your info is always worth it.
Do you have links to Grimanis research related to this? Or his research at Dolby related to it?
He's done tons of interviews here on youtube where he discusses his setup philosophies and why he chooses higher mounting elevations for Atmos Tops.
@@FURognar I agree. Thats not research though. I run 4 tops using the dolby diagrams but this conversation is interesting so how many people were in the research study, when did it take place, what were the angles of the speakers, how did they control for speaker placement etc.
Great vid Matt. Each to their own as you say, but hopefully the last time you need to explain the industries perspective on this issue.
It would help if other content creators on this platform stop supplying info on this issue that suits their narrative but not necessarily the intent of the content that we all consume.
I agree 100%. There are a couple RUclipsrs out there who are always pushing the height approach. They somehow feel more qualified to give advice on the subject than the engineers who actually created the format.🤦♂️
@@stevenlawrence2232 whats wrong with having the discussion? Some people might like heights better, others like Tops better. You wont know which you like better if the perception is there is only one way to do it.
Plus the other formats straight up work better with heights. So people who might be inclined to use multiple formats should be informed that its okay to use heights with Atmos.
@@FURognarNothing wrong with having a discussion and trying out different scenarios. Nothing to do with what I was saying. People are getting confused about the various approaches and which is correct. The Dolby way is the correct way for their format. That’s not to say that people can’t experiment with their own speaker placements, just don’t try to pass it off as correct.
@@FURognar fair enough I guess. I've tried both. I preferred the Anthony Grimani / home theatre gurus approach. For me that FAR out performed for both native and upmixers of Atmos and dtsx good quality bookshelf heights in top corners, sides or the most expensive upfiring speakers on the market (kefs). I'm lucky in that I did on ceilings in order to experiment. Not everyone can do that WAF factor to deal with and so on. Sometimes its in ceilings or nothing.
What annoys the poo out of me about the self proclaimed experts on RUclips on this subject is that when doing in ceilings you've only got one shot at getting the placement right. Someone following them takes that self proclaimed advice and doesn't like it, that's it. their done - or it's an expensive fix. On that basis wouldn't it be more sensible to listen to those that either install for a living or, as Matt and others like audioholics have substantiated, mix the Blu rays we listen to?
@@brucecarter6205 couldn't agree more Bruce
I went from Heights to Tops on my 7.1.4 system and I can't say I heard a bit difference. But in my small HT the top made more sense as the angles of the heights was too close to my bed layer speakers.
Question, what would you call too close to bed layer, I have 12 speakers coming in next week and im debating on mounting to ceiling or above bed layer.
@@carlosh8113 ie. if the vertical angle between your fronts and the heights/top as measured from your MLP is too low (
@@carlosh8113 If you ook at various videos and the dolby specs, they recommend a certain number of degrees from MLP to each speaker (horizontally and vertically). So If your ceiling is fairly low (like mine) then the number of degrees vertically from fronts to front heights is fairly small so I went with tops instead. the audio seperation is pretty close and likely wouldn't notice the difference but I got a great deal on used Monoprice in ceiling tops so I went with it.
I thought the heights are supposed to be as wide as the front LR and not more narrow?
Thats what the Dolby diagrams show, but many designers prefer to bring them closer to improve overhead imaging. And I also suspect to overcome poor off-axis response of in-ceiling speakers. Using an aimed bookshelf speaker on an articulated mount solves the issue and the imaging is just fine. Its just not as pretty.
Thanks!
Let's just say amiable speakers would end this controversy... Pre Dolby the Yamaha DSP-1 Professional I installed in my Venue in the late 80s had a test mode called swirl passed a voice around the space in a direction you programmed.
Initial delays and decays handled the rest all along with a 3 band EQ on each Channel Dolby did make home theater mixes until 95... It's amazing how the monetized such a simple technology
Yeah I just mount bookshelf speakers on articulated mounts and aim them right at my listening position. So my 30° Front and Rear heights sound just fine because of the precise aiming.
My Marantz AV 10 only doesn't support wides with 8 channel heights. And it automatically turns on and off the internal relay for it. You can do 9.1.6 no problem. It's center height and voice of god that require the electrical relay and those only work in IMAX Enhanced and Auro-3D.
They should also work in regular DTS:X-Pro
@@FURognar They _should_ be supported in DTS:X Pro, but they're not. I don't have front wides, so it's not that. I even tried faking it by reassigning the front wide channels (without the relay) to center height and top surround, but it still didn't work.
Imagine my surprise after setting up 8 speakers only to realize the little content I had that supported them was even fewer.
Even worse, I later found out that Windows only supports 7.1.4 using the Spacial Audio API with no upmixing available even when outputting via Atmos and DTS:X.
It has to do switch the fact that the Spatial Audio API outputs PCM audio over HDMI using those protocols (rather than regular PCM like native 8-channel audio), and the limitation of HDMI audio bandwidth restricts your total channel count. It's pretty bad.
Here I was thinking I'd setup 8 height channels for _something_ and found out they were worthless...
@@Saturn2888 yeah, Denon and Marantz are famous for that, starting with the X8500H where it had 15.2 pre-outs but could only ever process 13.2 at one time.
They continued this with both the Denon A1H and the Marantz AV10, where they have more pre-outs than they can process so you can hook up alternate formats and switch between them. Its very easy for people to get confused thinking it can process that number of channels.
Very few processors can handle more than 6 heights. I think the only ones that can do 8 or 10 at once are Storm and Trinnov.
You do make a lot of sense on this one - it's all mixed in Dolby Atmos setup studios. I think front heights sound great to make an expansive front stage. However, I agree that the 4 X Dolby tops are probably a great comprimise, because they deliver much more locatable/realistic overhead onjects like rain and choppers, and aliens (A Quiet Place).
Yes, they make for a very tall soundstage. They do that "wall of sound" effect perfectly when matched up that way.
If you want strong overhead effects, you can always upgrade to a 13 or 15 channel model and install Top-Middles, which is what I have done. So I get the tall soundstage AND the overhead effects at the same time.
@@FURognar Yes, good suggestion. I think that's the best layout. My AVR 'only' does 4 height/top channels. I'd need to upgrade to a much more expensive AVR. Might eventually do that.
100%!😁
Auro 3D with its dual layers and ”voice of god” is a better system than atmos in how its done. But its a mute point since auro isnt used..
Interesting DTS X Pro is quite similar to Auro with its 3 layers.
But again its not really mixed as it seems.
Dts:x is really inferior to atmos. The surrounds are much too ”hot”.
Perhaps the reason is its remixed from atmos?
Regarding movies with both auro 3d and atmos there were plenty made here in europe. Blade runner 2049, original twister, black panther, transformers etc.
Getting hold of a disc might prove difficult though
I don't understand how people are arguing preferences and citing "research" as in some dude listened and stated his preference. There's nothing scientific about this. Then we say "artists intention" and i always ask, which artist? The director? The writer? The sound engineer? The person make gun shot sound effects using things that aren't guns to replicate a gun shot because that sounds better in a movie vs actually using a gun shot. Excuse me as I finish watching John Wick on my ipad in the airport. This appeal to authority is lame and unsubstantiated in these situations.
There's an interesting video on this ruclips.net/video/DWjZZwIe71w/видео.html at 4:11 - inherently, the problem is more that Dolby Atmos matrixing is not sophisticated enough to make the sound appear to come from the location indicated by the person using the monitoring software. One thing he mentions I don't agree with: I don't think this differs between AVRs, otheriwse better matrixing would be in the Dolby spec and you would be able to benchmark it between AVRs.
What matrixing are you specifically referring to and what makes you or them think this is true?
Let’s again go back to how it’s monitored. These effects are sent to the tops in a nearfield mixing room that has the tops directly overhead at the angles specified in the pro setup guide.
The mixer is then moving the objects the way they intend while monitoring on a 7.1.4 or 9.1.4 system. If it’s an older studio it may even be monitored on a 5.1.2 system. They then can do real time rendering to check the positions and often a 9.1.6 or 7.1.4 system is used for that. That means the engineers would hear what they intended on a speaker setup similar to what we have.
So what matrixing are you talking about?
@@PoesAcoustics Did you watch the Dolby Atmos test video file linked in the description?
So what happens if you try to make a sound come from right above the screen or right above the mains? You get a directly overhead sound played.
It did when I listened to the demo file.
Why isn't Dolby Atmos applying some sort of psychoaccoustics to make sounds appear to come from the location indicated in the tooling used by the mixers (for example by sending some material out of the mains in addition to the overheads all the way at the top)?
I think some other technologies like Sony's 3D audio technology or probably some other formats), are doing what Dolby Atmos isn't.
I do recognize that for most content it won't matter because as you mention the mixing engineer is likely using overheads so he will just not assume there are front heights and not try to do this in the first place.
@@xavdeman I think you still are not understanding me.
Stop looking at the visual. It’s an aid. It is not meant to be taken so literally. This was what the Dolby engineers and mix engineers told us when we asked. They mix by what they hear. Not by what the little visual aid depicts.
As for the psychoacoustic aid. They do. All overhead objects have an HRTF correction applies. It’s a dynamic correction that changes with position to mimic the sound of panning objects.
One more thing to add. The visual in the apple tool may not be as accurate as the visual in protools. Professionals use protools. It’s ubiquitous in the Hollywood level of industry. Apples Logic Pro is used by Indy artists and amateurs as it’s way less expensive.
This is a great question, and I keep learning as I watch Matthew's and others' videos. I get confused however, when I see videos like the one from Techno Dad and what he says seems to make a lot of sense. Can anyone shine some light on the disconnect between both approaches? ruclips.net/video/4CNneY6JtTU/видео.html
Techno Dad, really? I don’t think so. I would listen to the engineers who created the format, and actual industry experts like Anthony Grimani.
@@brucecarter6205 Technodad does mix his own music in Atmos, so its not like he's completely clueless. He works in the industry.
It was working with Atmos music that started him down this rabbit hole.
@@ChalPhenku are you getting the link?
@@FURognarNo. I don’t have any link. Where did you post it?
@@ChalPhenku I posted it but it wont show up. Let me try something
The Dolby manual are the most useless recommendation there is and to me just pointless. There are so many variations of them.
Dolby Atmos is not the same as it was when it came out by having ceiling speakers. Most of the manuals show the physical height speakers in the ceiling.
So Dolby Atmos has a ceiling bias placement.
All of the floor stand speakers have speakers projected sound aiming at the ceilings. There is one set of speaker placement on the wall and not very high up to project down the voice of God effect.
Dolby wants Dolby Atmos to be in nightclubs and in cars. In headphones. So it is somewhat stupid that Dolby doesn't have manuals for height speakers for the wall locations. It's either ceiling speakers or virtual height speakers.
Yeah if you rent or live in an apartment good luck with getting those ceiling speakers mounted in.
I have a Vizio M5.1.2 with Dolby Atmos with 2 upfiring speakers. I have 1 Vivio 5.1 that does virtual Dolby Atmos.
I like how Auro 3D has speaker placements that have different height levels. My Satellite speakers are all on the same surround channel with left and right but the way I have it is to project more sound at me.
On my floor are 2 subs, behind the TV is my Vizio 5.1.2 Soundbar, above that are 2 vertical aligned surrounds, and above that and to the right is my Vizio M5.1 soundbar. It's almost like an Aura 3D setup. With speakers placed at different heights.
None of this in the Dolby Manuals which has all surround speakers at a horizontal level.