Definitive Technology 5.0.4 Dolby Atmos Speaker System Reviewed

[Danzilla31]

The review said Auro-3D does not work with Dolby enabled speakers. ("Dolby Atmos enabled (ceiling-bounce) speakers are not compatible with Auro-3D layouts. Auro-3D requires discrete on-wall or in-ceiling speaker channels.")

That is simply not true with newer AVRs (my 7012 manual says they DO work with Auro-3D). Peer reviewed twice you say?

Auro 3D requires a different layout from the way I understand it then Dolby atmos does. If I understand it correctly which all the different setups now can be confusing to do it properly you need more speakers up top especially for that voice of God speaker to be honest no setup should utilize ceiling bounce speakers Dolby auro any of them. There not a very effective compromise. But I understand there necessity not everyone can go in the ceiling or mount bookshelves off the ceiling and stuff like that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

But I think the review is correct I just don't see how 4 traditional upfiring ceiling bounce speakers for atmos could replicate the auro sound since they require a slightly different layout

You also have to watch what certain manufacturers claim these are the same companies that claim there av recievers can pump out 260 watts per channel when really they can't etc etc. An example is when Dolby came out with those ceiling bounce speakers and touted them as the next second coming. When reviewed they were found to be poorly designed peices of junk that Dolby was selling for bull@$t prices. The designs have gotten better now though thanks to the scrutiny this recieved

The other issue is I'm hearing there isn't a lot of auro 3d around yet anyway and it may take a long time to really take off but if I'm wrong on any of my perspectives please anyone feel free to jump in and help clarify

 

[VonMagnum]

I'm not implying Dolby enabled speakers "should" be used, just that newer AVRs can use them with Auro. I personally do not care for bouncy speakers.

Auro is basically a 5.1.4 layout and other than the side height speakers being on the wall instead of the ceiling, it's pretty darn close to the Atmos layout. Normally, you would put side surrounds somewhat behind you with 5.1 bases so it's really pretty close. In a 7.1 base, you can change surround height to rear height (considered less optimal). This layout again works with an Atmos layout just fine, but the rear height speakers are no longer right above the side surrounds (this probably affects the dual-quad miked recordings accuracy, but for film soundtracks it's not so terrible). I don't think my older Marantz SR7010 can use enabled speakers, but my 7012 can. I personally do not use them.

I use a hybrid layout with a switchbox that lets me do "true" Auro-3D 9.1 with a couple of button presses or I can use rear height and extract a top middle (normally used for Atmos/X here, but it will work with Auro as well). Since I use matrixed rear wides, the extraction method actually gets the alignment in a full length room fairly close and doesn't sound too far off from Atmos when playing a native Auro mix of the same movie compared to the Atmos soundtrack (no true rear beds, but the matrixed sides bring the image back much closer to the rear height location than without). With the switchbox, I can use just surround heights right above my side surrounds or I can play the rear heights (duplicated in parallel) at the same time similar to how an Auro 11.1 cinema does it. I have three rows of seating so that method or the extraction method both sound much better for rows 2 and 3 than the straight 9.1 layout/mode here, but that mode sounds great for the front row and MLP (actually they all sound good there).

I can also shrink my room to 5.1.4 instead of 11.1.6 and playing an Atmos soundtrack over that layout sounds nearly identical to the same soundtrack in Auro-3D native doing pure 9.1. I've found that the layouts affect the sound more than the actual mixes stored on the discs. Atmos has the advantage of rear surrounds, however.

As for the VOG, it's not needed (according to the inventor of Auro-3D himself) for most home environments (say 7-10 foot ceilings or thereabouts) as the surround heights can phantom image the VOG pretty well in that environment. You'd need to get the VOG higher up than the side heights would normally be placed (a cathedral ceiling room might be ideal to use side heights plus a really high up there VOG). Similarly, CH is phantom imaged between the two front height speakers.

Personally, I think the hype about the speaker layout differences in the home environment between Atmos and Auro-3D are overblown. If Auro had allowed Top Middle to be selected instead of "surround height" so both could use the same outputs (or even a switchbox if you want to actually use both "true" speaker locations), it'd be a lot simpler to do a 7.1.6 type layout for both. Since I use extraction for top middle, I don't have this issue. My side height speakers are only 20 inches off the horizontal path for ceiling top middle (which oddly is right in line in a 9.1.6 layout with the side surrounds) so the difference between them really isn't audible in my 12x24 room. I have rear heights on the ceiling in the back and front heights by the ceiling next to the screen in the front. Sides are dead middle of the room which is where the Atmos renderer expects them to be anyway. Thus, I've had no real issue doing a combined layout here.

The Denon 8500 would have given me problems both due to the above selection issue (you can save the saved Audyssey settings to a USB stick to get around it, though) and the 11-channel limit to DTS:X (all 17 channels work in DTS:X here since I extract them from the existing signals using the center output from a couple of 'Pro Logic" processors, one for each side. The 7012 is blissfully unaware.

 

[Danzilla31]

I'm not implying Dolby enabled speakers "should" be used, just that newer AVRs can use them with Auro. I personally do not care for bouncy speakers.

Auro is basically a 5.1.4 layout and other than the side height speakers being on the wall instead of the ceiling, it's pretty darn close to the Atmos layout. Normally, you would put side surrounds somewhat behind you with 5.1 bases so it's really pretty close. In a 7.1 base, you can change surround height to rear height (considered less optimal). This layout again works with an Atmos layout just fine, but the rear height speakers are no longer right above the side surrounds (this probably affects the dual-quad miked recordings accuracy, but for film soundtracks it's not so terrible). I don't think my older Marantz SR7010 can use enabled speakers, but my 7012 can. I personally do not use them.

I use a hybrid layout with a switchbox that lets me do "true" Auro-3D 9.1 with a couple of button presses or I can use rear height and extract a top middle (normally used for Atmos/X here, but it will work with Auro as well). Since I use matrixed rear wides, the extraction method actually gets the alignment in a full length room fairly close and doesn't sound too far off from Atmos when playing a native Auro mix of the same movie compared to the Atmos soundtrack (no true rear beds, but the matrixed sides bring the image back much closer to the rear height location than without). With the switchbox, I can use just surround heights right above my side surrounds or I can play the rear heights (duplicated in parallel) at the same time similar to how an Auro 11.1 cinema does it. I have three rows of seating so that method or the extraction method both sound much better for rows 2 and 3 than the straight 9.1 layout/mode here, but that mode sounds great for the front row and MLP (actually they all sound good there).

I can also shrink my room to 5.1.4 instead of 11.1.6 and playing an Atmos soundtrack over that layout sounds nearly identical to the same soundtrack in Auro-3D native doing pure 9.1. I've found that the layouts affect the sound more than the actual mixes stored on the discs. Atmos has the advantage of rear surrounds, however.

As for the VOG, it's not needed (according to the inventor of Auro-3D himself) for most home environments (say 7-10 foot ceilings or thereabouts) as the surround heights can phantom image the VOG pretty well in that environment. You'd need to get the VOG higher up than the side heights would normally be placed (a cathedral ceiling room might be ideal to use side heights plus a really high up there VOG). Similarly, CH is phantom imaged between the two front height speakers.

Personally, I think the hype about the speaker layout differences in the home environment between Atmos and Auro-3D are overblown. If Auro had allowed Top Middle to be selected instead of "surround height" so both could use the same outputs (or even a switchbox if you want to actually use both "true" speaker locations), it'd be a lot simpler to do a 7.1.6 type layout for both. Since I use extraction for top middle, I don't have this issue. My side height speakers are only 20 inches off the horizontal path for ceiling top middle (which oddly is right in line in a 9.1.6 layout with the side surrounds) so the difference between them really isn't audible in my 12x24 room. I have rear heights on the ceiling in the back and front heights by the ceiling next to the screen in the front. Sides are dead middle of the room which is where the Atmos renderer expects them to be anyway. Thus, I've had no real issue doing a combined layout here.

The Denon 8500 would have given me problems both due to the above selection issue (you can save the saved Audyssey settings to a USB stick to get around it, though) and the 11-channel limit to DTS:X (all 17 channels work in DTS:X here since I extract them from the existing signals using the center output from a couple of 'Pro Logic" processors, one for each side. The 7012 is blissfully unaware.

That's a lot of good information. Thanks for sharing. Do you know if Auro has a lot of content in the U.S. yet? I've heard the pickings are slim. I've set up my place for atmos and DTS but haven't focused on auro yet due to this basically I guess you could say I'm prioritizing Lol

 

[VonMagnum]

There is no US Auro content to my knowledge. I bought my discs from Amazon Germany and Amazon UK and eBay Australia.

 

[8OhmsHolmes]

Over the years room correction has morphed into something it’s not intended to be: a panacea for poor speaker placement. One thing we’ve tried to emphasize here at Audioholics is that there is no substitute for proper speaker placement in a room. Your speakers and room need to be viewed as complementary parts of the music chain. Misplacing speakers in a room can make exceptional speakers sound mediocre. Proper placement of mediocre speakers in a room can make them sound their best.

Bipole speakers can present some challenges to room correction systems. Let’s also remember that not all room correction systems are the same. As far as Definitive Technology goes, there needs to be some care because for one thing, room correction can potentially alter crossover and the phase of the subwoofer and then put things out of whack with the midrange driver. These are side conversations we had with Definitive Technology during the review period but didn’t get into super detail in the review.

It’s important to mention one thing: Every Audioholics review goes through not one but two internal peer reviews and gets an additional technology review by the manufacturer as well. There are three rounds of review before an Audioholics article goes online.

In the section of connecting speaker level and LFE with a Y connector, Definitive states, “We recommend that you do not use your receiver’s auto setup function as they can be ineffective in setting up and adjusting speakers with integrated powere subwoofers.” In light of the aforementioned comments of course that makes sense. However the manual also states, “For advanced instructions on Intelligent Bass Control including integrating with room correction software (ex. Audyssey),please visit our website or give us a call.

I’ll point you to this Q&A on that topic and Definitive’ Technology’s response is quoted below with the relevant sentence highlighted:

“Quite often, we find that auto-calibration systems built into most receivers get confused with bipolar speakers and integrated subwoofers. In our testing, the distance and delay settings are often incorrect. Additionally, an out-of-phase error is common. The reason is that some of the sound has already been reflected from several room boundaries before it gets to the AVR’s microphone (as is the nature of bipolar speakers),which doesn’t allow the receiver to provide the best settings.

“However, while auto-calibration can be problematic with bipolar speakers, we have done some internal testing that suggests Audyssey running from Denon or Marantz receivers works really well with the BP9000 series in auto-calibrate mode, even in unfavorable rooms. Our recommendation is to use a Denon or Marantz receiver with Audyssey and give it a try. If you encounter problems, you can always resort to manual setup.”

As you’ll note in my review, I indeed used only Denon and Marantz AVRs. When I have the ability to use the Audyssey mobile app, I don’t apply EQ aggressively and focus primarily on lower frequencies letting my ears be the final judge.

I’m glad you found Gene’s and Hugo’s videos helpful. That’s why we have Gene’s video linked in the article. There are other considerations that we feel are important for our readers to know about. Remember, all our articles on the site are complementary with one another. We don’t oftentimes have room to talk about everything in one article—setup and options of bipolar speakers and powered speakers being great examples.

Also, it’s worth repeating that for Audioholics reviews, when we do 2-channel listening tests, all EQ is turned off!!!

Thanks for the comments!

Thanks for the additional information and insight into your review process and experience working with Definitive Technology to get the most out of the BP9080s and BP9060s. I missed the Audyssey app support to even EQ just the lower Bass frequencies by one model year. I would need at least the Marantz SR7011.

All in all, with no other surround systems to compare it to, I am happy with the performance I am getting from their speakers (BP9060s, CS9040s, SR9080s and SR9040s). Without the use of any EQ, I found the towers sound better further into the room, in my case 3 feet from the back wall. Room placement and my ears are all I have to go on. My wife is happy sitting in a mother-in-law quality seat, so I haven't tried getting her honest 2nd opinion on how they sound in different places in the room.

 

[Justinb3v06]

"If the fabric wrap is damaged the whole speaker has to be shipped to factory for repair"

I've been a Deftech dealer for 10 plus years and this statement is not accurate. All speakers can be repaired with a few hand tools, Allen wrench, and a Phillips screwdriver, small flat blade screwdriver and can typically be repaired by a DIY person or Local HIFI shop. We've repaired these in the field and have even walked clients through it over the phone via FaceTime. All parts can be replaced on these speakers without having to ship unless its a vintage piece thats no longer in production. Definitive Technology has Wonderful Tech Support and is by far one of the Easiest to work with regarding repair issues.

Justin B
DEFINE Audio Video

 

[everettT]

"If the fabric wrap is damaged the whole speaker has to be shipped to factory for repair"

I've been a Deftech dealer for 10 plus years and this statement is not accurate. All speakers can be repaired with a few hand tools, Allen wrench, and a Phillips screwdriver, small flat blade screwdriver and can typically be repaired by a DIY person or Local HIFI shop. We've repaired these in the field and have even walked clients through it over the phone via FaceTime. All parts can be replaced on these speakers without having to ship unless its a vintage piece thats no longer in production. Definitive Technology has Wonderful Tech Support and is by far one of the Easiest to work with regarding repair issues.

Justin B
DEFINE Audio Video

If your willing to do it yourself and great if dealers offer the service.

 

[Justinb3v06]

If your willing to do it yourself and great if dealers offer the service.

The same could be said for any speaker that gets a bump or blemish.. or needs to be serviced.
I wouldn't really consider it a Con though. I Just don't feel that its an accurate statement to list it as a negative when the manufacturer offers many other options for repair than just shipping it back, the average Joe with a screw driver could do it. Also the same could be said for Golden Ear and many other brands that have the same Sock like Covering.

 

[ryanosaur]

 

[everettT]

The same could be said for any speaker that gets a bump or blemish.. or needs to be serviced.
I wouldn't really consider it a Con though. I Just don't feel that its an accurate statement to list it as a negative when the manufacturer offers many other options for repair than just shipping it back, the average Joe with a screw driver could do it. Also the same could be said for Golden Ear and many other brands that have the same Sock like Covering.

Never implied it was a con. Just that some aren't interested on making repairs, they would have to choose an alternative. If I nicked the clear coat in one of my towers, I wouldn't bother with the repair, I'd have to pay someone. It's nice that there are 7 coats of clearcoat, but not something I'd tackle anymore.

 

[everettT]

View attachment 28242

I have one cat that will go to town on leather and nothing else. When we bring the cats to the other house they are too busy with the new environment to bother. I also dont have grills on the Salks, so meh.

 

[Justinb3v06]

I have one cat that will go to town on leather and nothing else. When we bring the cats to the other house they are too busy with the new environment to bother. I also dont have grills on the Salks, so meh.

I also have furry Terrorist's at home as well.. feel your pain!

 

[ryanosaur]

I have one cat that will go to town on leather and nothing else. When we bring the cats to the other house they are too busy with the new environment to bother. I also dont have grills on the Salks, so meh.

One of my cats is more interested on curling up on top of the AVR or amps. It still didn't stop my concern of having paper cone woofers potentially at floor level (had I bought Tekton, for example),or full length cloth grills to "protect" them.
Nothing on my BMRs... and should have no need on the Phils-3s! Just swish a dusting towel over the drivers every few days to keep them clean, and a microfiber towel to keep the shine.

BTW, emailed with Jim in Dennis' absence: My cabinets were veneered a couple days ago... maybe 30 days (min) at this point pending other projects and required level of involvement to complete. Trying to not get too excited... but its nice to know its well under way! Realistically expecting end of April.

 

[ryanosaur]

I also have furry Terrorist's at home as well.. feel your pain!

Our beasts are pretty well behaved usually. That said, I've had feline friends for a good part of my life and it is a silly lack of consideration to not look at the cat-iverse from their perspective. Too many people neglect this simple shift. Until its too late. They're only terrorists if you expect them to adhere to your "reality."

 

[everettT]

One of my cats is more interested on curling up on top of the AVR or amps. It still didn't stop my concern of having paper cone woofers potentially at floor level (had I bought Tekton, for example),or full length cloth grills to "protect" them.
Nothing on my BMRs... and should have no need on the Phils-3s! Just swish a dusting towel over the drivers every few days to keep them clean, and a microfiber towel to keep the shine.

BTW, emailed with Jim in Dennis' absence: My cabinets were veneered a couple days ago... maybe 30 days (min) at this point pending other projects and required level of involvement to complete. Trying to not get too excited... but its nice to know its well under way! Realistically expecting end of April.

Oh the same cat sleeps on the subs in the HT and loves them. Both have crown amps on top

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Our beasts are pretty well behaved usually. That said, I've had feline friends for a good part of my life and it is a silly lack of consideration to not look at the cat-iverse from their perspective. Too many people neglect this simple shift. Until its too late. They're only terrorists if you expect them to adhere to your "reality."

I totally agree. I’m very lucky. My fuzzy boy is is really well behaved. But I make sure he has what he needs. He’s never scratched anything except his scratchers. And me when we wrestle too hard... lol

 

[TheoN]

The review said Auro-3D does not work with Dolby enabled speakers. ("Dolby Atmos enabled (ceiling-bounce) speakers are not compatible with Auro-3D layouts. Auro-3D requires discrete on-wall or in-ceiling speaker channels.")

That is simply not true with newer AVRs (my 7012 manual says they DO work with Auro-3D). Peer reviewed twice you say?

A canonical Auro 3D setup calls for direct radiating speakers, not Atmos enabled speakers that bounce sound off the ceiling. You can check out the Auro 3D spec here. https://www.auro-3d.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/Auro-3D-Home-Theater-Setup-Guidelines_lores.pdf The review doesn’t say they don’t work—any speaker will work when plugged into the AVR. The review says they are not compatible, which is accurate from an Auro 3D perspective. Here’s an analogy: You can turn your front speakers around to face the wall and bounce sound to your primary listening position and see if you like that better than direct radiating. Of course you won’t. It will “work“ but I think we all agree direct radiating is what’s comaptible with the setup.

 

[VonMagnum]

Oh please. That's not what it was saying. Auro 3D definitely did not ALLOW enabled speakers when it came out. I don't mean just hooking them up for God's sake. I mean Auro approving/allowing the AVR to assign them and still function.

This did not work on the 7010, but does work on the 7012 and like rear heights, it was because Auro changed their minds when they realized it was corporate suicide to challenge Dolby to that degree on the playing field. If Auro wants adopted, it is the one who must compromise, not Dolby as Dolby holds all the cards (market) right now.

The truth is enabled speakers don't work any wose/better with Atmos or X than Auro. They are a poor substitute for real overhead speakers regardless, but sadly the ceiling (and even high walls) are never going to be popular places to put speakers in most homes. In-ceiling aren't easily moved or filled back in and so are bad for home sales as they tend to be permanent fixtures.

Auro is not fundamentally different from Atmos. You still have to blend bed with overhead. An enabled speaker is possibly more ideal for Auro than Atmos in the sense they want the overhead right above the same bed speakers. Atmos has different placements in most of its layouts. Having the bed project the height above it fits the Auro model to a T except for the fact the bounce isn't often very convincing, but that is true for Atmos and X as well.

 

[TheoN]

Auro 3D requires a different layout from the way I understand it then Dolby atmos does. If I understand it correctly which all the different setups now can be confusing to do it properly you need more speakers up top especially for that voice of God speaker to be honest no setup should utilize ceiling bounce speakers Dolby auro any of them. There not a very effective compromise. But I understand there necessity not everyone can go in the ceiling or mount bookshelves off the ceiling and stuff like that sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

But I think the review is correct I just don't see how 4 traditional upfiring ceiling bounce speakers for atmos could replicate the auro sound since they require a slightly different layout

You also have to watch what certain manufacturers claim these are the same companies that claim there av recievers can pump out 260 watts per channel when really they can't etc etc. An example is when Dolby came out with those ceiling bounce speakers and touted them as the next second coming. When reviewed they were found to be poorly designed peices of junk that Dolby was selling for bull@$t prices. The designs have gotten better now though thanks to the scrutiny this recieved

The other issue is I'm hearing there isn't a lot of auro 3d around yet anyway and it may take a long time to really take off but if I'm wrong on any of my perspectives please anyone feel free to jump in and help clarify

Auro 3D has two main differences in the current home implementation (again we’re talking about “by the book.” First you are correct about speaker layout. It’s different. Secondly Auro-3D is channel based and not object based. I haven’t reached out to Auro on an update to see if their object-based tech is coming to consumer AVRs.

DTS:X can use either the Auro 3D or Atmos layouts. So let’s put DTS:X aside for now. Because most people aren’t installing both canonical Atmos and Auro setups manufacturers came out with the so-called unified setup that shifted the Auro side height to be rear heights. Gene DellaSala has a great article advocating this layout as the most practical before it was adopted widely. Auro will tell you it’s a compromise. They prefer the canonical layout with side height over the side surrounds. Remember Auro is channel based not object based in the home AVRs. I’ve tested the unified vs. canonical Auro and prefer the canonical Auro layout.

I’m fortunate to have a variety of Auro content that the company has supplied me with for reviews. I’ve observer that it’s been difficult to get Auro-3D titles in the USA. You need to order from Amazon UK or Amazon Germany if I recall correctly.

I’d conjecture that most people are therefore using the so-called unified layout that has front and rear height channels simply because it “works” from a practical POV and the AVRs support it.

All that being said, you can therefore certainly substitute direct firing for Atmos-enabled (ceiling bounce) speakers with the unified layout.

These are compromises by manufacturers to address the simple reality that all of us can’t necessarily have dedicated rooms with perfect placement of 9, 11, 13 or 15 speakers.

While in our testing we always find direct radiating speakers to be preferable/superior to Atmos enabled speakers we’d never tell an enthusiast who can’t install height speakers for whatever reason (cost, constraints, architecture) to consider Atmos Enabled. There’s nothing better than experiencing immersive audio. It’s the real deal. Once you experience it you can’t go back to any other setup.

And as you’ll see in our forthcoming review of the Denon X8500H (when it goes live),Denon did an outstanding job of addressing the speaker layout and output issues that plagued AVRs of the past.

 

[VonMagnum]

I have the capability to drive a true Auro layout (surround height) or the more-Atmos friendly layout. The differences are about the same as reducing 7.1.6 to 5.1.4 (I'm using up to 11.1.6). Atmos over Auro sounds similar to Auro over Atmos (in that both mixes sound similar over the same speaker layout). The differences are way overblown in a home setup as Auro is really just 5.1.4 with the side heights being at the wall instead of in-line with the front mains (image expands outward however far the difference in distance is). That's about all there is to it. Otherwise, it sounds like 5.1.4 with cinema soundtracks (dual quad miked soundtracks are another matter as they need placement more correct to align correctly with the original mic locations).

If you expand Auro-3D to use more speakers (e.g. Use rear height but then extract the top middle channels and send it to side height and I expand the bed surrounds to rear wides with matrixing as well arriving at Auro-3D through 9.1.6 worth of speakers, it sounds oddly similar to the Atmos mix over 11.1.6 from the front two rows of seating here (matrixed rear wides pull the side surround images back to be more like rear surrounds. It's the same as sitting up a row further in 5.1.4 (in-between sides and front). The end result is similar.

Channel based is meaningless in a way since Atmos has to be rendered to channels one way or another. Most DTS:X soundtracks are being rendered as 7.1.4 channel based as are Disney Atmos soundtracks. These all sound the same. If you extract channels (via neural x when DTS:X Pro is released to the public) or via Pro Logic type processors, you get the same result. Channels in the middle between discrete channels. Is Top Middle rendered by Atmos ANY different from Top Middle extracted between front height and rear height? No, there's no difference what-so-ever. All the marketing bits about precise 3D imaging is exaggerated. There are only 34 channels possible and you can extract at least half of them from lesser soundtracks. A DTS:X 7.1.4 soundtrack can expand to at least 11.1.6 as I've already done here using extraction.

Neural X in DTS:X Pro will do the same thing for existing non-object based soundtracks (more channels can be extracted than that, though like rear center and rear center height, center height and the VOG, giving you at least 12.1.9 capability in DTS:X Pro with Neural X based extraction from a mere locked 7.1.4 soundtrack. Sadly, Atmos will be stuck with 7.1.4 on a high-end AVR since it won't allow an upmixer like Neural X to be used with it. You will need to use external methods like I'm using to get more than 7.1.4 from a Disney Atmos soundtrack).