You are not logged in. [Log In]


Forums » General Discussion » Home Theater » 3rd home theater, trying to do it right....

Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#420870 - 10/27/16 05:01 PM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: aarons]
nickbuol Offline
axiomite

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 5366
Loc: Marion, IA
9.1 system with a second sub (sorry, trying to stay technically correct since there is no such thing as a 9.2 system, just like my 7.1.4 system with 2 subs isn't a 7.2.4 system. It isn't a count of speakers, but a count of the audio "channels" and there is only 1 single sub/LFE "channel" even if you have more than 1 connection on your receiver).

Anyway. If not going Atmos, then go for a better center channel. The center channel is the single most used speaker in a home theater setup. More detail and audio comes out of it than anything else, and it is so critical. For way too long people have skimped on their center channels and had these larger, better quality left and right channels, but for straight home theater that isn't good.

So better center channel gets my vote if I had to pick.
_________________________
2-M60s, VP180, 8-M3s, SVS 20-39PCi, DIY Sub, 8-Shakers, JVC RS45, Anthem MRX-1120

Top
#420871 - 10/27/16 05:41 PM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: aarons]
aarons Offline
veteran

Registered: 10/17/16
Posts: 132
Hmmm, I believe my Yamaha RX A3050 9.2 has 2 subwoofer outputs. Are you saying the two outputs is only in fact one channel? So what is the .2 in the 9.2? It also has Dolby Atmos so I figured I would use it. Am I mistaken about something?


Edited by aarons (10/27/16 06:09 PM)
_________________________
It all matters.....just not very much.

Top
#420873 - 10/27/16 07:29 PM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: nickbuol]
bridgman Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 6218
Loc: Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By nickbuol
As for my setup, there is an entire build thread here on it. I will grab some pics and link them into an additional post in a bit.


Oh it's *that* home theater smile

VERY nice. I have already started copying ideas from it, beginning with the speaker stands for the mains, so I guess this would just be the next logical step towards stealing the whole design.

It answers one of my other questions as well, which was whether the mains needed to be entirely behind the screen or whether the woofers could hang out below it. Thanks !!
_________________________
M60ti, VP180, QS8, M2ti, EP500, PC+ 20-39
M5HP, M40
LFR1100 actives picked up Friday 13th

Top
#420874 - 10/28/16 12:52 AM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: aarons]
nickbuol Offline
axiomite

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 5366
Loc: Marion, IA
Originally Posted By aarons
Hmmm, I believe my Yamaha RX A3050 9.2 has 2 subwoofer outputs. Are you saying the two outputs is only in fact one channel? So what is the .2 in the 9.2? It also has Dolby Atmos so I figured I would use it. Am I mistaken about something?


Yes. It is marketing gimmicky. My previous Onkyo receiver had 2 subwoofer outputs, was labeled "7.2" right on the box, but there is no movie to date that has ever been encoded on to a DVD, blu-ray, or UHD 4K disc that has anything beyond a ".1" mix for the subwoofer channel. The Onkyo simply had 2 subwoofer connections that were internally connected to the same subwoofer processing (both output the exact same). Your Yamaha is doing the same thing.

You get the exact same effect by using a Y-cable splitter and a single subwoofer output as you do using 2. The receiver basically just splits/duplicates the same .1 output to both subwoofer connections.

My current Anthem MRX-1120 even says "11.2" on the packaging and manuals... Even their website says it, but they at least note it as: "Two Sub Out Jacks (parallel)" meaning that both subwoofer outs are getting the same signal.

MRX-1120 Overview

In the manual for your Yahama, on page 19 it states about the subwoofer processing:
"Produces LFE (low-frequency effect) channel sounds and reinforces bass parts of other channels.
This channel is counted as “0.1”. You can connect 2 subwoofers to the unit and place them on the left/right (or front/rear) sides of the room." It even admits that it is just ".1" even though you can connect 2 subwoofers.

MARKETING!! All the big players do it.
_________________________
2-M60s, VP180, 8-M3s, SVS 20-39PCi, DIY Sub, 8-Shakers, JVC RS45, Anthem MRX-1120

Top
#420875 - 10/28/16 08:53 AM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: aarons]
aarons Offline
veteran

Registered: 10/17/16
Posts: 132
Gotcha! Thanks. Is there a real value in adding a second sub then?
_________________________
It all matters.....just not very much.

Top
#420878 - 10/28/16 10:55 AM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: aarons]
nickbuol Offline
axiomite

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 5366
Loc: Marion, IA
Absolutely. You get much improved subwoofer/bass/LFE response throughout more of your room with more subwoofers.

Low frequency audio is really tough to control in any regular or even large size room in your home. Peaks and nulls are rampant. Adding a 2nd sub (and placing it in a complimentary location) will help to smooth those peaks and nulls so that more and more seats sound good.

Generally the "ideal" subwoofer setup includes 4 subwoofers, each one at the midpoint of each wall or possibly some other layouts like these:


I wouldn't recommend the "four corners" approach as putting subs in a corner is considered boomy, but each room is different, and you want to balance out your subs out as evenly as possible in the space (opposite ends/sides kind of thing).

That said, the biggest bang for your buck is going from 1 to 2 subwoofers. Adding a 3rd helps a lot too, but not as much, and the 4th sub still helps, but even less than the 3rd, so the cost/performance decreases, but is still valuable up to 4 subs...

Here is a video, made by Axiom years ago, about multiple subwoofers.

I am sure that there are others, but hopefully this helps.
Axiom - Mutliple Subwoofers
_________________________
2-M60s, VP180, 8-M3s, SVS 20-39PCi, DIY Sub, 8-Shakers, JVC RS45, Anthem MRX-1120

Top
#420881 - 10/28/16 04:08 PM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: aarons]
aarons Offline
veteran

Registered: 10/17/16
Posts: 132
For my front sub am I better of putting it behind the screen to keep it out of the corner? If not behind the screen it's going to have to go in the front corner.

If behind the screen (I do have space) it will sit below the screen so I guess I leave that open and maybe hang an AT curtain below the screen to the floor?
_________________________
It all matters.....just not very much.

Top
#420883 - 10/28/16 05:48 PM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: aarons]
Mojo Online   content
axiomite

Registered: 01/21/07
Posts: 6094
Regarding Atmos, I think if you have QS8s and perhaps the "right room", you don't need it.

My buddy and I were watching the Blu-Ray, Atmos season 5 episode 1 where the imp was inside the box struggling to get out. Holy shit! We were in that effin' box! The ceiling was coming down on top of us. We just looked at each other in utter disbelief, cackled and watched it over and over again. We couldn't believe it!

Now I know Atmos is extra channels that I don't have but I'm just telling you what we both heard. I actually didn't know it was Atmos until we were checking out the liner notes.
_________________________
M100,VP160,QS10HPx2,EP800,M5HP,M3,M50 v4
M80,VP150,QS8x4,EP600 v2
ADA-1000-2,3,1500-3
Air N2

Top
#420895 - 10/29/16 11:08 AM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: Mojo]
Jc Offline

aficionado

Registered: 06/27/06
Posts: 530
Loc: Sherbrooke, QC, Canada
I'm not surprised !

First time I heard about Atmos I wrote to my colleague, Alan, or to Ian (may be booth) that if Dolby had used Axiom QS surround speakers they would have never felt the need for overhead speakers.

Have a great weekend !

jc

Top
#420898 - 10/29/16 01:00 PM Re: 3rd home theater, trying to do it right.... [Re: aarons]
nickbuol Offline
axiomite

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 5366
Loc: Marion, IA
Probably the biggest thing for people to remember is that you need to have a properly set up 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 system before even looking at Atmos. Just adding more speakers overhead won't magically fix things. That is why I spent a solid year (all of 2015 plus a few extra months) doing the tweaks that I should have done years ago. I got my bed layer 7.1 system sounding as good as possible before adding overheads for Atmos.

That said, Atmos is no gimmick. It isn't about just putting sound in more areas around you, if done well, you literally get a pinpoint 3D experience. 2015 CEDIA they used a demo at so many booths that was from Star Trek Into Darkness' opening scene. I think that it was Golden Ear's booth where they actually took the time to do an A/B switch of that same clip back and forth a couple of times. Atmos vs. non-Atmos. The sound without Atmos was quite good (solid setup of their bed layer 7.1 system) but when Atmos was enabled, it filled the room more (as would QS8 speakers for the surround sound), but then when they pinpointed one piece. It was where one of the natives of that planet throws a spear straight at "you" (middle of the screen throw right at the camera), you could literally hear the spear coming straight at you. That can't be done without Atmos (or DTS:X) regardless of speakers.

It isn't just about overhead sounds. It is about being able to precisely place sound objects anywhere in the space. That is something that is done significantly better with monopole speakers all around.

You need to be able to map a point in space, do you use all lasers for pinpoint accuracy, or a combination of lasers and a few flashlights? You will still get some decent sound area generalizations, but not pinpoint accuracy.

So I know that I talk about switching from QS8s to M3s for my own room, but understand that while monopoles are scientifically better and in practice noticeably better, it isn't like you couldn't get decent Atmos/DTS:X sound using quadpoles. And it isn't like people are able to do an A/B test at home between a full monopole system and a mix with bi/di/quad-pole so most people won't know any different. I mean the QS speakers are absolutely AWESOME for 5.1, 7.1, and 9.1 setups for surround speakers. I am just a crazy person that never wanted to know what I was compromising by not having monopoles.

One last note that was part of a key deciding factor for what I did. I have experienced SOOOO many Atmos setups that I knew that I had to have it. I needed 4 additional overhead speakers. I wanted my overheads and surrounds to be identical speakers for even better sound matching (I know that my receiver can tweak them to sound the same), but I also wanted the larger woofer and lower frequency capability since you need to have "full range" speakers overhead, even with bass management. I certainly wasn't going to put QS8's on my ceiling since that isn't precise enough, so that also pushed my decision to replace the QS8 surrounds with whatever I ended up putting on the ceiling, which was 4 M3s.

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough.

Can you do Atmos with QS surrounds? Yes
Will you enjoy it? Yes
Is a traditional 5.1, 7.1, or 9.1 setup with QS surrounds the same as Atmos? No
Is a solid 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 setup key to anything (Atmos or not)? Absolutely
Do you need to use monopoles all around for the most accurate immersive 3D audio (Atmos/DTS:X)? Yes
_________________________
2-M60s, VP180, 8-M3s, SVS 20-39PCi, DIY Sub, 8-Shakers, JVC RS45, Anthem MRX-1120

Top
Page 4 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 
Forum Stats

15,340 Registered Members
16 Forums
24,206 Topics
428,050 Posts

Most users ever online:
883 @ 03/04/17 05:06 PM

Top Posters
Ken.C 18044
pmbuko 16437
SirQuack 13611
CV 11734
MarkSJohnson 11445
3 registered (CV, craigsub, Mojo)
243 Guests and
2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newsletter Signup