7.1 height vs 7.1 surround

[Gadgetfreek29]

What are the main benefits between heights and surrounds?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Regarding the pics you put up(vs atmos heights), the heights will use whatever information in the soundtrack it seems as ambiance and apply it to the height channels.(PLIIz) This basically gives some verticality to the playback and can give a good sense of atmosphere. The rear surrounds will work discreetly like the rest of the channels, as long as the system is playing an actual 7.1 soundtrack, and depending on what is in the soundtrack. Some tracks have a lot of discrete directional sounds, and some will have ambiance and subtle sounds. If the system is playing a 5.1ch track, and the receiver is set to PLIIx, the rear surrounds will get matrixed sounds from the side surround channels. I haven’t set my own system to play plIIz but rather PLIIx(rear surround). IMO, playback suffers in PLIIx, as the rear sound field gets turned into a diffusive blob(I don’t like bipole surrounds either). So I normally recommend with a 7.1 layout to play whatever is native to the disk. If the SR and SL are setup properly(and of decent quality) you should be a able to have a very good rear soundstage with some sounds even emanating from behind the LP.
Fwiw, I prefer 7.1 with rear surrounds over front height.

 

[yepimonfire]

Regarding the pics you put up(vs atmos heights), the heights will use whatever information in the soundtrack it seems as ambiance and apply it to the height channels.(PLIIz) This basically gives some verticality to the playback and can give a good sense of atmosphere. The rear surrounds will work discreetly like the rest of the channels, as long as the system is playing an actual 7.1 soundtrack, and depending on what is in the soundtrack. Some tracks have a lot of discrete directional sounds, and some will have ambiance and subtle sounds. If the system is playing a 5.1ch track, and the receiver is set to PLIIx, the rear surrounds will get matrixed sounds from the side surround channels. I haven’t set my own system to play plIIz but rather PLIIx(rear surround). IMO, playback suffers in PLIIx, as the rear sound field gets turned into a diffusive blob(I don’t like bipole surrounds either). So I normally recommend with a 7.1 layout to play whatever is native to the disk. If the SR and SL are setup properly(and of decent quality) you should be a able to have a very good rear soundstage with some sounds even emanating from behind the LP.
Fwiw, I prefer 7.1 with rear surrounds over front height.

PLIIz sucks. Dolby’s new surround upmixer does a lot better with 5.1-7.1 or any channel count to as much as 7.1.4. I’ve never had issues with PLIIx though.

If a receiver is atmos capable, definitely go for height/overheads over rears. IMO, tears are probably the least beneficial addition and should be the last thing added.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

PLIIz sucks. Dolby’s new surround upmixer does a lot better with 5.1-7.1 or any channel count to as much as 7.1.4. I’ve never had issues with PLIIx though.

If a receiver is atmos capable, definitely go for height/overheads over rears. IMO, tears are probably the least beneficial addition and should be the last thing added.

Couldn’t agree more.(except we disagree on PLIIx performance lol) Except the question was basically plIIz vs PLIIx, not vs atmos. Since the question was between those two, I’m assuming an atmos receiver isn’t in play since the other two formats are gone, but that’s what he asked about.

 

[Gadgetfreek29]

My receiver does Atmos but I can’t mount speakers in ceiling and have a square vaulted recess in ceiling so Upfiring doesn’t work well. I’m really just trying to figure out if I watch movies 90% of the time is front height better than rears and surrounds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

My receiver does Atmos but I can’t mount speakers in ceiling and have a square vaulted recess in ceiling so Upfiring doesn’t work well. I’m really just trying to figure out if I watch movies 90% of the time is front height better than rears and surrounds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that’s a little tricky. The way you have your font heights mounted now(as in the diagram) is not the same as front heights for atmos. That’s the old pro logicII layout. As you may know front heights for atmos would be straight above where your feet would be if you stretched your legs all the way out. I have seen installations like yours, and also SVS sells their prime elevation speakers with that kind of location in mind. Not sure how effective...
If that were my room, I think I would give up rear surrounds and try 5.x.4. But instead of going in ceiling which you said you can’t. I would try on ceiling. I see you’ve mounted to the front wall. With the right brackets you can do the same thing on the ceiling. Something like this would require a stud, or even a heavy duty toggle bolt but wouldn’t be impossible to hang.

These are good too

as they have a straight ceiling version and longer/shorter lengths.
That’s all I got for now. I will think some more.

 

[Gadgetfreek29]

Current layout.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

If you have an extra set of speakers you could hook 'em up and alternate between front height/rear surround and see what you prefer....I did this when I got an avr with both capabilities (pre-Atmos, tho). I preferred rear surrounds myself in that particular room. Someday I may try it in my current room but I'll have to work something out as I wouldn't want to look at the wires

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

If you have an extra set of speakers you could hook 'em up and alternate between front height/rear surround and see what you prefer....I did this when I got an avr with both capabilities (pre-Atmos, tho). I preferred rear surrounds myself in that particular room. Someday I may try it in my current room but I'll have to work something out as I wouldn't want to look at the wires

The problem with the question is OP has an atmos avr. Front height means Atmos(5.1.2 at least), not plIIz. I’m pretty sure the old school front height locations work for atmos. At least I don’t believe they’ll present atmos content correctly there, but will have sounds come out.

I don’t like pliiz so if it was my room, I’d find a way to mount something on the ceiling. Or just stay with 7.1. Problem I see with that is not much room behind the LP. Although those bipoles currently on the front wall might be ok as rear surrounds. In short I’d try to go 5.1.4 and avoid rear surrounds in that particular room.

 

[lovinthehd]

The problem with the question is OP has an atmos avr. Front height means Atmos(5.1.2 at least), not plIIz. I’m pretty sure the old school front height locations work for atmos. At least I don’t believe they’ll present atmos content correctly there, but will have sounds come out.

I don’t like pliiz so if it was my room, I’d find a way to mount something on the ceiling. Or just stay with 7.1. Problem I see with that is not much room behind the LP. Although those bipoles currently on the front wall might be ok as rear surrounds. In short I’d try to go 5.1.4 and avoid rear surrounds in that particular room.

Thanks for the reminder on the Atmos avrs (Dolby Surround only, right?)...think you pointed it out to me before, too Not having joined in the Atmos thing....yet.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Thanks for the reminder on the Atmos avrs (Dolby Surround only, right?)...think you pointed it out to me before, too Not having joined in the Atmos thing....yet.

I gotchu man!!!
I can see how you did that. The picture shows pics of PLIIz/PLIIx. It’d be easy just to answer it that way. Maybe it was a trick question? Lol

Yeah, Dolby Surround(dsu, dts nueralX etc), no pro logic.

 

[yepimonfire]

My receiver does Atmos but I can’t mount speakers in ceiling and have a square vaulted recess in ceiling so Upfiring doesn’t work well. I’m really just trying to figure out if I watch movies 90% of the time is front height better than rears and surrounds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go with heights then. For upmixing 5.1/7.1 content, Neural X works a lot better with heights than Dolby Surround, since dts x 11.1 is actually designed with front and rear heights in mind. For atmos, the avr will simply render the sound appropriately from the front heights. You could also do what I did, and mount the speakers to the ceiling with an omnimount.

I think this works better than in ceiling speakers anyways.

Neural x will also render 7.1 tracks across a 5.1 bed as objects phantomed between the two surrounds, so long as the surrounds are placed at 110 degrees, it’s almost as good as true 7.1 speakers.

 

[yepimonfire]

The problem with the question is OP has an atmos avr. Front height means Atmos(5.1.2 at least), not plIIz. I’m pretty sure the old school front height locations work for atmos. At least I don’t believe they’ll present atmos content correctly there, but will have sounds come out.

I don’t like pliiz so if it was my room, I’d find a way to mount something on the ceiling. Or just stay with 7.1. Problem I see with that is not much room behind the LP. Although those bipoles currently on the front wall might be ok as rear surrounds. In short I’d try to go 5.1.4 and avoid rear surrounds in that particular room.

Technically, any configuration works with atmos. With 5.1.2 using heights, The avr simply reports to the renderer that there are speakers located at 0, 30, and 110 degrees on the floor, and heights at a 45 degree elevation 60 degrees apart from center and the renderer figures out where each object should be placed.

Dolby Surround uses multiband logic steering to upmix, neural x does too, but neural x also converts 5.1/7.1 mixes to objects in the dts x object space and renders them based on any speaker config chosen in the avr, which is why 7.1 mixes sound better on a 5.1 setup with it enabled.

 

[Gadgetfreek29]

I have a Marantz 5011, 7 channels so 5.1.2 would be most I can do. If I mounted a set to the ceiling like you all suggest where would I place them?

I don’t mind selling the bipoles and buying a set like Polk OWM or some other angled speaker.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Ideally you’d be looking at this.

 

[Gadgetfreek29]

I think I can easily do that layout by mounting speakers at the highest point of the wall where it meets the ceiling. I really don’t want to make any holes in the ceiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Audioctor]

I think I can easily do that layout by mounting speakers at the highest point of the wall where it meets the ceiling. I really don’t want to make any holes in the ceiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SVS Prime Elevations can be mounted like this...

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

 

[yepimonfire]

I think I can easily do that layout by mounting speakers at the highest point of the wall where it meets the ceiling. I really don’t want to make any holes in the ceiling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wouldn’t you have to make holes regardless to mount them on the walls?

Mounting top middles to the side walls like you’re suggesting could work, but only if the distance to the side walls is not much further apart than the front speakers. For example, if the front speakers are 2’ from the left and right walls, it’d be okay, however, if the left and right walls are something like 6’ from the l/r, the imaging is going to be screwed up. Top middle speakers should be as close as possible to in line with the front speakers.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Wouldn’t you have to make holes regardless to mount them on the walls?

Mounting top middles to the side walls like you’re suggesting could work, but only if the distance to the side walls is not much further apart than the front speakers. For example, if the front speakers are 2’ from the left and right walls, it’d be okay, however, if the left and right walls are something like 6’ from the l/r, the imaging is going to be screwed up. Top middle speakers should be as close as possible to in line with the front speakers.

I think it might be important to address the speaker positions properly. “Top middles” would refer to some like x.x.6. Front height is what op is talkin about since he’s 5.1.2. Sorry, it’s just a peeve. Like when people refer to surrounds in a 5.1 system as rear surrounds.
Ok carry on!

 

[Gadgetfreek29]

Wouldn’t you have to make holes regardless to mount them on the walls?

I have a smooth finish ceiling and eggshell painted walls so I feel like when I move out of this lease that covering holes with beige eggshell paint would be easier than matching a perfectly smooth white ceiling.
[/QUOTE] Mounting top middles to the side walls like you’re suggesting could work, but only if the distance to the side walls is not much further apart than the front speakers. For example, if the front speakers are 2’ from the left and right walls, it’d be okay, however, if the left and right walls are something like 6’ from the l/r, the imaging is going to be screwed up. Top middle speakers should be as close as possible to in line with the front speakers.[/QUOTE]

My L/R are 26 inches from each side wall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk