Improving Spatial Sound Location?

[RobinC]

My 9.2 system is used for 100% movies, and I'm listening to ATMOS demos while focusing on the spatial location corresponding to the video. For example, the ATMOS "Leaf" demo has the sound circling the listener. I get a reasonable sound location behind the listening position, but the front right disappears, and it is weak at the front. The speaker layout is shown in the attached diagram, and the right side of the room is open. I understand it is a terrible Home Theater room and layout, and it will not be possible to change the TV location or add room treatments. It is also not possible to add ceiling height speakers as it's a cathedral ceiling. Of all the Audyssey settings I've tried, setting to Flat made the most significant improvement.

Do you have any suggestions to improve spatial sound accuracy?
I can add two more height speakers, but these would not be able to be mounted on the ceiling.

The system is a Denon AVR-X4500H with seven speakers, two height speakers (heights are above the Left and Right speakers on the wall), and two subs. I calibrated the room with Audyssey.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Well this is interesting. For starters, what you have is 7.1.2, not 9.2. That’s confusing as it could also mean 5.1.4. Just to helps for clearer communication.
Is there any way to not have the whole LCR and display in the corner? That’s a massive problem and mostly likely the biggest issue.
How high are the front heights? If they’re too low, you’ll lose distinction between the two layers.

 

[RobinC]

Well this is interesting. For starters, what you have is 7.1.2, not 9.2. That’s confusing as it could also mean 5.1.4. Just to helps for clearer communication.
Is there any way to not have the whole LCR and display in the corner? That’s a massive problem and mostly likely the biggest issue.
How high are the front heights? If they’re too low, you’ll lose the distinction between the two layers.

Thanks for the response. I dont know the nomenclature, but I was hoping the attached diagram would help clear that up. There is a center, LF, RF, 2 rear and 2 side surrounds, 2 heights, and 2 subs. Is that 7.2.2?
The whole LCR in the corner CANNOT be moved, and its a big sound issue, but I will be happy knowing I did the best that can be done with that configuration.
The heights are mounted directly above the LF, and the RF, and the heights are at 7.5ft. It's been a while, but I think for positioning, I followed the Dolby guidelines. The system allows me the capability to add 2 more heights, but again I cannot mount these in the vaulted ceiling.

 

[TLS Guy]

Thanks for the response. I dont know the nomenclature, but I was hoping the attached diagram would help clear that up. There is a center, LF, RF, 2 rear and 2 side surrounds, 2 heights, and 2 subs. Is that 7.2.2?
The whole LCR in the corner CANNOT be moved, and its a big sound issue, but I will be happy knowing I did the best that can be done with that configuration.
The heights are mounted directly above the LF, and the RF, and the heights are at 7.5ft. It's been a while, but I think for positioning, I followed the Dolby guidelines. The system allows me the capability to add 2 more heights, but again I cannot mount these in the vaulted ceiling.

I have come to the conclusion that few rooms are suitable for an Atmos system. Most rooms, including yours, are hopeless cases. Unless you can conform to the letter of Dolby specs, it is a mess. My opinion is, that room would be far better off, and give much greater pleasure with a 3.2 system. I would always advise spending the cash on a better 3.1 or 3.2 system, than putting money into an Atmos system in an unsuitable room. That room is the very definition of an unsuitable room.

I think the biggest issue with Atmos implementation is that it requires a purpose designed room and installation for good results.

 

[Speedskater]

Multi-channel systems work better in more absorbent, less reflective rooms.
The speakers supply all the side and rear info.
* * * * * * * *
While in two channel systems, the wall reflections supply the ambiance info.

 

[TLS Guy]

Multi-channel systems work better in more absorbent, less reflective rooms.
The speakers supply all the side and rear info.
* * * * * * * *
While in two channel systems, the wall reflections supply the ambiance info.

Room dimension ratios are the dominant factor. Next is the rigidity of walls and floors. Actually sheet rock is not bad acoustically, it is what is behind the sheetrock and under the floor that is really important.

I am thinking of starting a thread in AV room architecture and engineering, we don't talk about this nearly enough.

 

[Speedskater]

My thoughts:
a] The rigidity of walls and floors is more about bass response and not so much about spatial location.
b] Few of us have much control about room dimension ratios.
c] From a mid-frequency point of view, few of our rooms have side-to-side symmetry.