Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Surrounds for Dolby Atmos- QS8's or direct firing?

Just curious to people's thoughts here. My previous 7.1 setup used all QS8s. I'm working on a new theater room, planning on 7.2.2 with two of the new in ceiling speakers from Axiom. There's quite a debate over at 'the other forum' over dipole/tripole surrounds vs direct firing. Some folks feel like modern movies have discrete channels now, that Atmos is creating it's own 'imaging' by placing sound objects in space and that diffuse sounding surrounds may disrupt that imaging.

I guess it's all theoretical until someone does an AB comparison.

Atmos - direct firing. That is how it is designed, and why they are "matrixing" the overhead sounds with the front channels (they are direct) and not surrounds (which can be direct, or bi/di/quad pole).

Diffusing type speakers for overhead Atmos will suck. Plain and simple.

That is it in a nutshell, and for people with the attention span of a squirrel (not you, but some of the other rascals around here).

For more information, keep reading....

That is the biggest problem that experts are saying the speakers with an "Atmos module" on top of them has... It takes a direct speaker, plops it on top of your mains or even surrounds, and then bounces it off the ceiling. By then, it is so diffused that they don't think that you will get very accurate object placement in space.

Wait a couple of weeks. I am going to CEDIA. I already have some Atmos demos scheduled. So far the premiere setups (which most of them fall into this area) are talking about direct firing only. The less-than-premiere manufacturers are showing their "Atmos enabled" front speakers a lot, which are still direct firing speakers. I can give a report back on the speaker tech used for that.

If I had the cash, and if I was sticking with Axiom, I would get their new in-ceiling M3 speakers (4 of them if I am going to do it) and a serious receiver (have to be 11.2 to get me my 7.2.4 that I would want). Unfortunately, that is WAY more cabbage than I can spend.

I'm using the in ceiling for the overheads. My question is about the surrounds.

While I am awaiting shipment of my Marantz SR7009, I am working to see how I can implement a 7.1.2 Dolby Atmos layout without tearing apart my ceiling.

Here is my current setup;
75" Mitsubishi LaserVue L75A91
Onkyo TX-NR905
[url="http://www.axiomaudio.com/gallery_disp.html?image=Epic60V350BlackGrilleOff71.jpg&title=Epic60V350"]Axiom Audio Epic 60 - 350 in a 7.1 channel configuration[/url]

and an old pair of [url="http://axiomaudio.com/gallery_disp.html?image=M22BlackGrilleOff2.jpg&title=M22"]Axiom Audio M22s[/url]

Here is an image of how it currently looks (not M22s hiding in the shadows atop of the oak entertainment towers)
[img]http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showpic&id=1461[/img]

I have an 8' ceiling comprised of acoustically absorbent 2'x'2 tiles. The seating is about 9-10' from the television. Here is the idea that I am kicking around, and I would love any feedback.

My plan was to re-purpose my M22s by placing them horizontally atop of the 6' oak entertainment towers. The speaker cabinet/s of the M22s is slightly angled, which when laid on their side, would place the drivers on a slight angle toward the ceiling. While I am unsure as to if the angle will be sufficient (which I will be able to easily modify), I am more curious as to how well (or poorly) the ceiling will reflect overhead audio. It is my hope that the ceiling tiles will reflect a sufficient amount of the sound, and perhaps help to diffuse it a bit.

Thoughts?

Sorry, I mis-read that. Surround channels aren't the primary "non-Atmos" channels used for creating the object placement. It is created, at least in its current upcoming version, via the front channels and overhead speakers.

Who knows what the future will hold, but since your ears face forward, the idea is that you won't be able to detect audio points in space behind your ears, and thus the surround channels won't matter if they are direct or di/bi/quad pole.

What you are getting from AVS is people's personal preference for their existing surround speakers, regardless and outside of an Atmos implementation.

With that said, and yes I do love having four QS8 surrounds, I have always wondered about switching to direct speakers instead of the QS8s for surrounds. Not because anything is wrong with the QS8s, but I feel that from my front row of seats, the rear surrounds are "too diffused" by the time that they hit that row, and that is the row that I sit in... Yes, it is all about me.

Again, I will report back as to what I see & hear, and what I can learn from talking to the Dolby Atmos guys themselves in person in 2 weeks when I am at CEDIA.

Spence, my thoughts are that the Atmos design is best implemented by directly downward firing speakers in the ceiling. The alternative of using vertically upward firing speakers(which some makers will supply)on or near the mains may give a reasonable effect which would be influenced strongly by the nature of the ceiling construction. As Dr. Toole has pointed out with respect to the importance of having first reflections remain as similar as possible to the direct sound(suggesting a hard flat surface would be best at the relevant reflection points), so a hard reflective ceiling would appear to be desirable from the standpoint of the Atmos effects.

The acoustic tiles in the ceiling would both reduce the level of the output from the Atmos channels(the amount dependent on the NRC, noise reduction co-efficient, of the tiles in question)and would alter the relative frequency content of the reflections. So, it wouldn't appear to be a very favorable surface for supporting the Atmos effects.

Having said all that, what you propose would have little or no expense and little complexity in making the installation. Setting the M22s at an angle to fire almost vertically at the ceiling(not simply relying on the angled side surface)can be tried to see if even the less than optimal result is still worthwhile in your view.

Thanks. I was afraid of that. ;-)

It may have to do, while I save & formulate a "plan B".

Nick thanks for the info. I'll be waiting a few weeks to buy surrounds anyways- I'd be interested in what Dolby says.

I just found out Onkyo is going to fix my 5 yr old 3007 that had the infamous HDMI board fail. So technically I have a functioning AVR. Not sure if I'm buying a new one or not...

I don't believe that the 3007 is Atmos capable. I thought that only the most recent receivers would be...

Still.... Glad to hear that they are fixing the HDMI board.

That's my dilemma. Stick with the 3007 and put Atmos off a bit or get a new AVR and try sell the repaired 3007.

I'm going with the Marantz. Gonna use an old AVR to power extra set of ceiling speakers for 7.2.4 (just sounds crazy). The more I look around I'm leaning towards the in wall M3s, or maybe even the in-ceiling speakers for the surrounds. It would certainly be a cleaner look with painted grills. I bought my LCR with the Sept coupon promotion, when my coupon comes in later this month I'll get the surrounds, but looking at 3 more pairs of speakers (ouch!).

It'll be interesting to see what info comes out this week.

OK. CEDIA is just a couple of days away, however I already have the answer to what type of speakers for Dolby Atmos speakers from a mono/di/bi/quad pole perspective since that was part of this conversation.

Craig Eggers from Dolby states that monopole (direct) speakers are most desired, and thus the reason manufactures are going that route for their speakers touting the "Atmos" name. With that said, he went on to say that "bi/di pole speakers will work, but the effect will be diminished." When pushed on the subject, he came back with basically "it would be 'less than ideal' to use anything but monopole speakers."

He and Brett Crockett, also from Dolby, kept offering up that the Dolby Atmos system "adapts" and "is scalable" and "works with what tools it is given (referring to speakers and connections)." So when he said "less than ideal" to use anything but direct firing speakers, I took that, based off of his tone, as it isn't a good idea, or better yet, why bother, but didn't want to take away from how "dynamically adaptable" the system is.

What I would love would be a surface mountable direct speaker that can be ceiling mounted. That way I wouldn't have to punch four 8.25" holes in my soundproofed ceiling... On-wall speakers would work if there was a way to "lock" them to the ceiling, but as they currently exist, they use gravity to "hang" on the power bracket, and that isn't designed for ceiling mount.

Interesting. So if I already had a full complement of surrounds I'd stick with what I have. But otherwise sounds like in-wall m3s will be the way to go.

I guess you could build and enclosure and mount the ceiling speaker in there if you don't want holes in the ceiling.

They were talking specifically about the Atmos speakers for the ceiling. No issues with the surrounds being bi/di/quad-pole.

I am REALLY hoping to get to do the A/B/C demo at Dolby's booth this year. They are going to play a 7.1 soundtrack, then do 7.1.4 with "Dolby Atmos Ready" speakers (the ones that fire up at the ceiling), and then a 7.1.4 with a regular 7.1 setup and the final .4 being ceiling mounted speakers. The listening room is supposed to have 3 rows of seats, so we will see what happens.

There are many Atmos sound demos going on, and another one that I am looking forward to is a 9.1.4 setup where it is the traditional 7.1, plus 2 front wide speakers, and then the 4 in-ceiling speakers.

But again, the idea is that any additional speakers can still get you to the "Atmos Nirvana" by adding on to an existing 5.1 or 7.1 setup. Heck, anything above 5.1 can actually go through the Atmos upscaler process and playback "object based" Atmos sound, even without ceiling speakers (yup, a traditional 7.1 can playback an Atmos track with improved imaging), but the ceiling speakers are where the "magic" happens, as they put it.

Can a QS4/QS8 be rewired or can a few of the drivers in an enclosure be disconnected to essentially make the QS series a direct-fired design? Of course, you're halving the drivers, but the build profile might work for surface-mount on ceilings.

If there's a phase issue, it could be corrected by swapping the input wires or at the receivers end...or within the receivers' controls.

Mark, re-wiring wouldn't be needed because the drivers in the QSs operate in-phase and don't make use of phase effects to accomplish their wide dispersion.

Disconnecting some of the drivers to leave just one tweeter and one mid-woofer would appear to gut the design advantages of the QSs and leave a comparatively mediocre, more directional speaker.

Atmos demo #1 done. Steinway Lyngdorf audio system only costs $128,000 for that one. Next up is Dolby's A/B/C demo with 7.1, then 7.1.4 with ceiling mounted speakers, and then 7.1.4 with speakers mounted on top of the main speakers and pointing up. I already asked a slew of questions, but had to get in line for the demo. I still have a few more questions to ask. I will post more details tonight.

Thanks nick. Can't wait to hear more about it. My in-ceiling m3s shipped yesterday, I'll let you guys know how those are when they get here.

Well, I asked about ceilings, speakers in ceiling vs mounted on existing speakers, surround speaker types, placement of speakers so on and so forth.

I will report most things back in another thread, but for Atmos, Dolby confirmed that they want ALL monopole speakers. While bi/di/quad pole are great for regular surround, they don't work well when trying to "place" audio "objects" into a sound field. Moving forward, dispersed audio will no longer be our friend for surrounds.

Also, for ceiling speakers, they should be placed in. Such a fashion that is you drew a "box" around your seating area (1 row, w rows, whatever) then you would basically place each of the 4 speakers just outside that box's corners and point/direct them so that they are pointed directly at the middle of that box. Not sure if the ceiling M3s can tilt inside the cabinet or not.

That is about all that I feel like typing in on my phone for now. Dolby.com should have install guides available online starting today for other setups like 7.1.2.

Just in time for the winter build! Thanks Nick!

How was the steinway system anyway? Nudge nudge....

You all will have to wait another day. I finally made it back to the hotel after returning the rental car and taking the shuttle back to the hotel. It is only 10:43pm here right now, but I need to get up at 3:00am to get to the airport. I am going to bed.

I'm not sure 5.1 would be the same with monopoles. I'd assume their statement is generally true as it relates to 11.1.4+ speaker layouts.

I learned a LOT about Atmos while at CEDIA. Here is a quick note about the 5.1 and surround field as mentioned just before this.

In an Atmos theater, you no longer have "channels." There is no "send the audio to the right surround channel, or to both surround channels." It is now, as they beat into everyone's head, "object based" sound. Heck, they kept saying that the front main speakers are no longer "channels" as we've traditionally known them.

What they are is a set of speakers, layed out to encompass a listening space in a dome of sound. Inside that "dome" they can use a variety of speakers to create a sound that seems to be coming, literally, from anywhere in that space. As such, the proper implementation would have monopole speakers in all locations so that the processor can create the sound anywhere in that space.

Think back to when you had just 2 speakers and Dolby surround came out. If you didn't rush out and get a center channel, you could use your receiver to create a "phantom center" that appeared to be in the middle between the two actual speakers. Remember those days? Same idea here. However, since you have more than just 2 speakers to create a phantom image in 1 sound "plane" (between the two front speakers in my example above), you can actually steer many, many sounds around the room at the same time. To do this, you do not want diffused surround sound speakers, but ones capable of this "steering." Also, because the system can create many multiple sounds in many points in space at the same time, you don't get diffused surround sound, but very precise components of sound anywhere within that surround sound field, including overhead.

There were 2 really good demos of this. One is called Dolby Atmos Leaf, and the other was from the beginning of Star Trek: Into Darkness. The Atmos Leaf really is an odd name since it doesn't actually focus on a leaf at all. It focuses on a Maple (for those Canadians) seed. Growing up, we called them "helicopters" because of how they would spin if you threw one up into the air. Anyway, there is a point where that seed is making a "whirring" sound as it rotates around the room, and it doesn't just pan between speakers... there are many points where it is distinctly located between any of the speakers, including the ones on the ceiling. For Star Trek, this is when they are on the planet with the "natives" in a white paint, and trees with bright red leaves, and Kirk steals a scroll from their temple... Anyway, the "native" are throwing spears, and you can hear distinct paths, to the right, to the left, above, etc. But the really interesting part is that you can, after a few times experiencing the demo, that there is one spear throw that you can literally hear as it moves from behind the screen, through the screen, and continues to move closer and closer to you until it sounds like it went right through you. No joke. It was really cool.

Now, I didn't see any demos for 5.1.x Atmos. There was a lot of 7.1.4 and one 9.1.4 configurations, so I can't speak directly to how that would compare. In an article that I was reading that I got at the show (read it on the plane this morning), it was asking a guy (Google him if you want his name) who created Aura 3D Audio who was trying to distinguish his object based audio from Atmos. He says that you need more than 9.1.4 to do it right, and you really need something like 9.1.2.7 (9 regular, 1 sub, 2 ceiling, 7 heights). Long story short, the more speakers, the more that the system can do with it. Right now Atmos is pushing the x.x.4 because that is where most products will be at that can do the processing. In a couple of years, that will grow in the main stream receivers and such. My first Atmos demo was with a prototype processor that is going to be able to do something like 9.1.10 when it is finished next year. I think that it will only cost about $20,000.

So here is the stickler. What about non-Atmos movies? DTS-MA or Dolby TrueHD really utilize a wide and diffused surround sound field. While you can spend big bucks, like on that $20,000 processor that will switch between "speaker group A" and "speaker group B" depending on if you want to use your bi/di/quad-pole or your monopole speakers for "regular" HD sound vs. Atmos or Aura, this is not practical.

So where does it leave us with all of our TrueHD and Master Audio blu-rays? Do we have to buy those movies again? No way! Atmos processors are supposed to be able to take those lossless audio tracks, and while it won't create a total Atmos experience, it will simulate that diffused sound field using monopole surrounds and probably with a little better clarity and precision (in a good way).

So am I going to rush out and get rid of my four QS8s and replace them with on-wall M2s? Nope. This technology is still pretty pricey. Even the buzz around CEDIA was to stay away from the lowest end Atmos receivers. Not because they are bad, but because they usually are missing some level of processing, or features that are desirable to get the initial "Atmos Capable" receivers out there with a "starting" price where it is... And that is still a few bucks over $1,000 USD.

For now I am going to sit tight and enjoy my 7.1.nothing system as it will be a couple of years before this is really going to become somewhat affordable. Yes, by then you will be seeing more than 4 height speaker connections (notice that I didn't say "channels"), but it was really impressive what can be done with "just" 4 and even that will set you back about $1000 for four M2s just for heights.

Whew. Hopefully that makes some sense. I am super tired after a very busy and long week of travel and work, plus an early morning/late night at CEDIA and then a stupidly early morning today. I am going to take a nap. I have some pictures and stuff to post later.

I'm definitely going to have to get a bigger house.

Thanks for the reply. I was leaning towards m3s all round since the ceiling are m3s and same drivers as my m60s. Maybe I should rethink.

I'm definitely going to have to sell my house.

I'll be the only guy with an Atmos setup who has to deal with the acoustics of living under a bridge.

Well, until I'm joined by those guys who were thrown out of their house when their wives opened the credit card statements.

Seems to me that the bridge beams & supports would be ideal for mounting and wiring speakers to handle the additional channels. This might catch on...

The Dolby guys (and gals) plus at least 2 of the other speaker demo companies were all using relatively small speakers for their overhead speakers. Now granted, the SteinwayLyndorf demo used some advanced bass management, or so they said, so that the smaller Atmos speakers sounded like full range speakers. Not sure how the "average" Atmos receiver or processor will handle that, but they sounded like full range speakers, or at least a lot more than just high tweeters, in all of the demos.

None of the overhead speakers were more than a single tweeter and single 5.25" or around that size. M3s with their slightly larger "woofer" would probably meld better with the Axiom fronts than the M2s, but I don't think that it is as critical based off of what I saw and heard. I mean most of the front speakers were massive beasts compared to the smaller overheads, and they still sounded well balanced.

I would, however, stay away from something like the M22s for overheads as they have the tweeter and dual drivers.

I'm almost wondering if I don't get the in ceiling M3s all around now for surrounds as well as opposed to the in wall M3s. Having all speakers the same couldn't hurt. I'm hoping to A/B compare my outdoor M3s to my ceiling M3s this week. Best comparison I can make with my current setup.

I currently have the vp160 center , m22 L/R , and qs8 for surround , 2 HSU VTF 3 MK4 subs , and 4 yamaha aw390 outdoor speakers that I will be using for my ceiling speakers. ( I know they are not timbre match with the axiom speakers but i'm using what i already have. ) I'm going for a 7.2.4 atmos setup and need another pair of speakers. I was going for another pair of qs8 until I came across this thread . Thanks for Nick about the Atmos experience and Q&A about what is needed for a decent but almost accurate home setup. I have a few questions and instead of starting a new thread hopefully they can be answered here. Since Dolby recommend monopole for all speakers which would better match my system , the m2 on walls or the m3 on walls ? ( I was thinking the M2 since the woofer matches the M22 .... idk ) My other question is whichever on wall speaker i buy do i place them as my side surround or for rear surround ? ( I currently have the qs8 for side surround.) And my last question is how high should i place the surround speakers ? The qs8 and the on wall monopoles. I currently have the qs8 at 6' high. According to Dolby the side surround and rear speaker placement should be placed " around " the same height as the listening - level speakers because the atmos ceiling speaker will do the height and above surround effects.

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/...-guidelines.pdf

I only have a few minutes before I need to head out for something, but I do have some thoughts on this. M2s would seem to be a better match for you, if you want Dolby Atmos imaging to be correct, you will have to replace the QS8s. I know that Dolby said that di/bi pole (and thus quad poles like the QS speakers) would be "ok," but if you could see the facial expression on the guy from Dolby when he said that, you could tell that is was almost painful for him to even say that people could use something that wasn't direct radiating (monopole).

If I was experimenting, I would say to put the QS8s in the rear, and the M2s on the sides and here is why...

With monopole fronts, sides, and overhead speakers, you should be able to get some pretty good object based sound effects in front of your ears, and the "less accurate" effect from the QS8s would be behind you where it wouldn't be as critical since sound behind our ears isn't as discernible as to its exact location.

Height is probably OK at 6', but in the demos I was in, they were, on average, just about ear level on the wall, which would be closer to 4' - 4.5'. This gives a little bit more room between the speakers on the ground/stands/walls and the ones on the ceiling which in turns allows for a bigger "dome" of sound as Dolby put it.

What concerns me about all the new atmos details is the new ideal height for side and rear surrounds of 1-1.25x the height of the mains. Basically 4-4.5 feet as Nick said.

Not an issue for in wall speakers, but on wall.... Kind of draws away from traditional speaker layout in a 7ch setup. How will this affect legacy audio sound mixes/layouts I wonder.

Thanks for the linky eman.

I just ran some numbers on what I would get from Axiom if I wanted to trade in my QS8s (one pair from 2004 and one pair, current model, from late 2011 but not used until mid-2012) to swap to something like M2 for monopole surrounds to lead up to Atmos down the road, but I only get $598 in credit (minus $30 for one set of boxes), which isn't even close to what would be needed to replace them ($880 for four new M2 on-walls for the surrounds), and I would still need to get ceiling speakers at some point.

Of course, every day that I wait, the less money I get at trade in, but the sooner I upgrade, the less "normal" surround sound I get to enjoy since I won't be jumping on Atmos until receivers get cheaper, and some level of DTS's version is supported would be nice too and that won't be for at least a year for that to be announced. Ugh. Stupid hobby.

Maybe Axiom would cut me a deal to be a Dolby Atmos home theater using their speakers.

Nerd rant:

I spent sunday at the "church of research" and came to the conclusion doing nothing for ATMOS in a hurry is warranted. Its still beyond bleeding edge and the interview at HTGeeks with Craig Eggers et al. was very "salesy." Took the wind out of my sails to be honest. I really wanted to be more excited about the ATMOS prewire than I ended up being.

At dolbys site the list of movies mixed in ATMOS since 2012 is kinda paltry. Only a hanfull announced so far for 2015.

I remember when prologic II was supposed to be amazing... It sucked compared to discrete. If "dolby atmos surround" upscaling is even in the same ballpark I'd pass. Dolby PL2z wasn't even taken seriously....

I'm with you- DTS will make up my mind with what they answer with. Also with you that keeping up with this changing sound format stuff is expensive!

Well, then sir you have been mislead by HTGeeks.

Hands down, Atmos was quite the buzz at CEDIA. People are STILL talking about it. A number of skeptics in the "industry" left CEDIA really excited about it.

Is it still too early to jump on the hardware? Yes. I am a firm believer is skipping "generation 1" tech for this kind of stuff.

With that said, ATMOS processing will make even your non-ATMOS movies sound better... At least if they have a Dolby HD track. Not sure how DTS HD-MA audio will be handled through ATMOS, or if it will did anything with it at all.

Again, don't take my word for it, check around and this is THE jump in audio technology that people have been waiting for since Dolby Surround. Oh, and I was a skeptic of ATMOS too, especially for the home, but I am a firm believer in it now.

Check out this video, or at least the first half of it, where they talk about the best of CEDIA and spend 30 minutes just talking about ATMOS.

Home Theater Geeks CEDIA Round Up

If Mark Henninger and Scott are convinced, there is hope for me yet.

I hope the futureshop in town gets an atmos demo. I'd like a date before I marry the technology.

I would still say "plan now" but don't pull the trigger on the speakers yet, and if you can hold off on getting a receiver for another year, do it.

Yep, receiver will wait until 4k standard is hammered down and HDCP 2.2 is common between brands to not be a "feature" anymore.

By then ATMOS/DTSUHD should be vetted out as well. Already saving.

Plus they will all do DTS's version of object based audio, and maybe even Auro-3D (although I doubt that Auro will get much traction).

[old fogey mode]But then, there will be something new around that next corner again...[/old fogey mode]

That's pretty much what I thought.

I have to say, I'm really liking the Dolby Surround Upmixer for music. I have never been one to listen to Music in any surround modes and usually just go for stereo, but the DSU just does something right.

I'm only running Top Fronts so far, there is a hold up with FedEx AGAIN with my second ceiling speakers. Even with the two ceilings it still sounds pretty good.

On another note, every time I have to place an order and get it shipped via FedEx...they mess it up.