Should you prioritize an universal immersive layout?

[@matta9316]

Your videos are a true service to the community!

[@surrealistix1]

Thanks

[@PoesAcoustics]

Thank you for the generous donation.

[@surrealistix1]

Very helpful Matthew. There is advice…. and then there is real advice.

[@towmky]

Thanks!

[@PoesAcoustics]

Thank you! Very generous donation. Thank you for watching and supporting the channel.

[@Risandi_Pradipto]

Yet another straight-to-the-point and clear explanation video.

[@tom6363]

Great subject. Would love to see you explain this more using a white board and actual calculations like HTG.

[@williamkramer9069]

No. Nah.

[@PoesAcoustics]

I have done PowerPoint presentations at Audioholics for years. I got away from them over time issues. I do want to bring them back in the future.

[@gjhunter9326]

Thank you so much Matthew, this was a terrific, well thought out answer. I was indeed thinking of Auro3D upmixing for the immersive agnostic context. Your answer regarding woofer lobing on bookshelf heights was really informative. I've been trying to decide whether to use downfiring in ceiling co-ax seakers at 45 degrees to the MLP row or bookshelves that allow aiming and this really helps. Much appreciated and keep up the great content.

[@PoesAcoustics]

No problem. The issue with the ceiling speakers is that they need to still be good speakers. A common issue is that many coax’s aren’t good speakers. But all else being equal, a baffle mounted speaker is better than a bookshelf hanging from the ceiling.

[@stefanscharer8533]

I use Auro upmixer 90% of the time. As a speaker DIY guy, I do not understand thinking that a speaker should be used out of axis. Atmos norm was later than Auro, because of the Auro patent, Atmos had to make compromises (my opinion). I think, logically, the placement of hight speakers is with Auro setup. I have a little 11.1 Auro setup in the living room (6 height speakers , Denon 8500). Atmos/DTS sounds still quite good. Most important is (in my opinion) having all speakers the same (all 11 channels are Q Acoustics Concept 30). In the home cinema I have a All4One setup with 9.5.8 with a Trinnov (before I had a 7.2.6 setup) - all 17 speakers are the same. In my opinion with the All4One setup you make no compromise, because it fits all norms. There is a „big book“ from Trinnov. The recommended speaker placements are very similar to One4All setup by Holger Bayer: www.grobi.tv/media/pdf/54/36/cf/One-for-all-Setup-Guide_V5-0_englisch_publishigPUdX9hPlgSJ.pdf The big book from Trinnov: drive.google.com/file/d/1qFpM5c9_n_0PU6EcW-J5qFvf4QDWqjg3/view?pli=1

[@sethfm9773]

These are amazing videos. I really appreciate your expertise and professionalism.

[@PoesAcoustics]

Thank you very much!

[@americanidle1277]

I'm still running my two receivers with DTS Neo:X 9.2 with front wides and DTS Neo:X 11.2 with front wides. Until they make a receiver under $3k that will support front wides at all times for Atmos and DSU for upmixing, I'm not upgrading. I upmixing everything including my 2ch music to DTS Neo:X with front wides and to my ears front wides are the best choice I've ever made.

[@bearclaw5115]

I use an Auro 13.1 layout and Atmos sounds excellent over it. I get that Atmos is more popular but it is a suboptimal layout to begin with. As you mention our hearing is way more sensitive in the horizontal plane than overhead. Dolby wanted an answer to Auro 3D but their superior layout was already patented so Dolby placed all their height speakers on the ceiling where they are somewhat wasted. My wish is that Dolby buys Auro's tech and reworks their layout. Until then 95% of content I run sounds best through the Auro upmixer. Love it.

[@PoesAcoustics]

I am not sure I would agree with these statements. Auro can’t patent these speakers placements. DTS-X follows similar layouts as evidence for such. Dolby simply didn’t agree with the placement. Atmos didn’t follow Auro. A lot of parallel research on the next generation of surround formats. Much if this work was ongoing for decades. A lot of it influences by surround research that goes back to the 70’s. A lot of the research included a height and top layer. But the labs used for testing were a lot larger than residential rooms. I don’t really know why Dolby decided against a height layer. I would guess that they felt it was not of much value compared to the tops when ceiling heights are mostly under 4 meters. Consumer adoption was also a major concern (thought the height layer is also not present in commercial cinemas). I’ve heard all these formats optimized and played back with dedicated content. All have sounded fantastic to me in their own way. None have successfully responded a 3D Soundfield realistically or correctly however. That remains the territory of ambisonics, Soundfield synthesis, and binaural. True 3D sound reproduction sysyems can give a realistic sense of proximity and all the current and past surround codecs, including Auro, cannot.

[@LTek1]

Matt, re: Constant DI speakers... been considering LCR using JBL SCL-6 or 88lCR (close to half the $) with 250wl or 280w surrounds or JBL Studio 6IW (2 rows) + 6 angled in-ceiling with 280CSA or 260CSA (do we need 8"?). I know JBLs are not your favorite but Erins Audio measured the SCL-6 and says they are very EQ-able. Any of these what you consider CDI or close? They seem to give a lot of bang for the $. Thx for your videos, they are greatly educational!

[@poleepwka]

Great video, Matt! One observation about the placement of Atmos heights is that in commercial dolby cinema they are placed between the LCR and not on the outside the seating locations. So that is why I found Trinnovs recommendations surprising.

[@PoesAcoustics]

Yes though remember that commercial still has a range of angles. They would never sit to the outside of the seats but can be inline with them. Our residential space matches the dubbing stage layout more closely than commercial cinema layout and is more the design approach I may copy if any. But also remember that ceiling heights in commercial rooms are much much higher.

[@Krbasshead]

I think my only problem with my surrounds is how high up they need to be. My room is 7’9” finished. I have 2 rows, the left and right surrounds are just a pinch behind the front row. I am just not sure how high up they should be. I’m building backer boxes for these so once it’s drywalled I’m stuck with that placement for ever ha.

[@PoesAcoustics]

With two rooms but only one set of side surrounds, I would place the tweeters around 6” above the back rows ear level. That’s a good compromise in a situation like that. If you don’t care so much about the back row, make it ear level to the back row. But don’t make it ear level to the front row. That would create too many issues overall.

[@Krbasshead]

@@PoesAcoustics sounds good. I want a good experience for everyone so I’ll go with 6” above the rear row, I assume I’d do the same with the back surrounds also?

[@adrianbarac3063]

Yet another superb video 👍

[@jordanhermant659]

Regarding Lyngdorf, the Lyngdorf MP40 and MP60 processors will indeed upmix to Dolby, DTS Neural:X and Auro 3D (as well as Auro 2D upmixing of stereo, and Auro Stereo downmixing of multichannel to stereo). Very very good video. Covered a lot of ground.

[@andrewskaterrr]

I think he was talking about if they support odd channel placement like a VOG for Auro. Most processors only support the standard 9.x.6 layout

[@PoesAcoustics]

Yes correct. Though I meant even beyond that. Like Dolby heights, side surround 1 and 2 instead of just side surrounds. Rc and Lc etc. There are many speakers that exist in all of these codecs that tend to not be supported by most processors. The Trinnov and Storm being exceptions. Supporting all of them. Trinnov supports all 31 possible Dolby Atmos channels.

[@Zachary_Setzer]

Really great stuff in this one. Thanks!

[@PoesAcoustics]

Thanks for listening

[@sk9592]

Another great video, thanks! You mentioned that KEF is close, but it’s not a true constant DI speaker. What is an example of a true constant DI speaker? Also, would you prefer a downfiring KEF in-ceiling speaker or angled RBH in-ceiling speaker for Atmos?

[@MyFatherLoves]

If size is no issue, Danley Sound Labs' Synergy Horn line, both wooden and molded, are true CD speakers. Like, we're talking pattern control well down into the 200hz range with a slowly widening dispersion as the mouth of the horn rolls off into full-space. Perlisten are *almost* CD in the horizontal plane with the added benefit in the R7 and S7 of having pattern control down to nearly 150hz in the vertical axis. KEF are *almost* CD both vertically and horizontally. HSU CCB-8 is CD until it crosses to the woofer and loses pattern control. Almost every speaker Genelec makes is CD in the horizontal plane. "The Ones" series are CD both vertically and horizontally. HEDD and Adam Audio both have excellent waveguides in their 3-way models that are basically CD in the horizontal axis. There are quite a few options that offer CD or CD-like dispersion.

[@SegaMasterSystm]

​@@MyFatherLovesI have all HSU CCB8s and absolutely love them... I'd love to get 4 more for Atmos, still have not worked out a way to ceiling mount them..

[@PoesAcoustics]

There aren’t really many if any true CD speakers in the residential sphere. Many of them compromise DI for sound quality. The things that allow true CD behavior can introduce sound problems. Namely from diffraction. But JBL (like the M2), Meyer Blue Horn, JTR/RTJ, and some Ascendo speakers such as Black Swans are largely CD. Don Keele invented the CD horn and it’s essentially defined by the notion of a speaker whose response shape doesn’t change with angle at any frequency. It simply gets quieter. In practice you can’t do this, you can only maintain the CD behavior over a limited bandwidth. Often something like 300hz to 500hz up to maybe 10khz or 15khz. However most CD horns have a diffraction slot and a lot of reflections. The wavefront inside the horn is chaotic to the say the least. So while its directivity behavior was excellent, sound quality suffered. So often CD type speakers made for residential settings will compromise the waveguide design a bit in favor of better sound.

[@BobFrostV]

Awesome video as always!

[@PoesAcoustics]

Thanks for the visit

[@bloodcarver913]

You are ignoring the most important part about aiming towards the MLP: it increases the dynamics quite a lot. Especially with all bed layer playing full range. Quite substantial results here. In-wall et. al. is okay if you can not do anything else in your room if space constrained etc. but the drawback will be that they normally can not be aimed. I prefer ONWALLs, aka wider and shallower than a normal standalone speaker. AND, aimed at my head. Each one placed in their own alcove on top of a low support platform and turned. Running an 11.6.0.4 setup and a StormAudio ISP.

[@PoesAcoustics]

No it doesn’t. Aiming the speakers has no effect on the dynamics. I didn’t ignore it. That isn’t a true statement.

[@LeeLee-fi7mx]

I totally agree with Home Theater Guru's about aimable speakers pointed toward the listening positions. The mids, and highs sound much better and overall perceived dynamics and volume levels is better. In my previous apartment living room, I went from in ceilings speakers that just had tilting tweeters with a limited range of movement and a woofer that pointed straight down and then in my new apartment, I switched to spherical cocentric/coaxial speakers that can be aimed in any direction. The difference is night and day. With the in ceilings, I was constantly wondering if atmos was even working, but now that I have a cocentric driver speaker,(Elipson Planet speakers) atmos effects come through loud and clear and everything just sounds so much better and yes, more immersive!

[@towmky]

Hooray I'm first 😀 Great video and well explained. Very helpful especially on the subject of aiming and placement. Lots of "experts" say speakers should be aimed, but don't really discuss its effectiveness or reasoning. I feel this also clarifies the snake oil of "aimable" tweeters. So many big and expensive brands out there that push this idea like the JBL Synthesis SCL-5 ($2,200.00). Can there even be on-axis position when everything at and below 1500Hz is pointing the opposite direction of the listener? It makes even less sense than bouncy house Atmos speakers.

[@PoesAcoustics]

Thank you for your question. I'll answer it in my upcoming videos

[@Tearial311]

I think home theater gurus only laser aims his in-ceilings