Using a 7.2.6 (13.2) channel system and after hours of listening to all three formats , Auro 3D is hands down the best compared to other encoding formats like DTS:X and Atmos. Even using Auro 3D on an Atmos soundtrack is superior. For proof just shut down your floor level speaker amps and listen to the heights switching among all three formats. Now I use Auro 3D immersive audio for ALL my listening formats….it’s just that good Thank you Wilfried!
@@jaysbakes37 we have 2 front wides, 2 height middle, and 2 height rear. Place the remaining two as front wides. A good visual in the vid Immersive audio 7.2.6
To answer Joe's question I use the SVS Prime Elevation as well. I have them on the wall 30 degrees up, but then used a laser level to see where the woofers were directed. I had to "splint" the bottom of the bracket to raise them about 12 degrees in angle so that the woofers were pointing at or just above ear level (flat on the wall they were pointing near my knees) I think Auro 3D was designed to have the height speakers match your base layer and have them on some kind of mount so you can point them at the MLP just like you do your base layer. Since the SVS have a fixed bracket, I used spacers to offset them the correct amount to have them pointing in the right place. I seem to constantly be stuck in debates about using the Auro layout for Atmos and DTS:X perhaps some of the smaller things I have done like this are why my setup actually sounds not just OK but great. If based on your seating position that ceiling mounting them would have them closer to your ear level at the MLP I would go that route instead. Just pick the one that fits closest so you have the least amount of offset needed to correct them. I do feel wall mounting them in general gives a better angle of attack especially for multiple rows of seating, but in a smaller space I can see how ceiling mounting could be the better choice.
I like you thoughts, I enjoy mine as well. I think the heights are supposed to be pointed above the mlp, so the top of the head. And when you stand up then the heights are at ear level. From what I understand on that document.
Help me understand please. If the VOG channel is a single speaker directly over top of the TV, is there also another speaker in the center but below the TV?
I can help you. The center height would but the speaker directly over the top of the TV, and then you still have your ear level center below the TV. The VOG channel would be a 🔊 directly above your head.
Please someone help me to understand. I replayed this video several times to find the best way to place my speakers in 5.1.4, but I still can't quite understand how to place the rear or side speakers. From 7:15, Wilfried explained how he wished to fill the side gap when 7.1 setup arrived, but he said then he discovered that the Auro-3d 9.1 setup covers the gap between the front and rear speakers, so I assume this is WITHOUT the side speakers, but how exactly should those rear speakers be placed ? Slightly offset from our ears at 110° as shown in the Auro-3d speakers setup video? Or completely behind us, facing the front ear-level speakers? And what about the height back speakers, should they come just above the speakers placed behind us facing the ones on the front, OR they must stay at 110° too?
What he is saying the gap disappears when you add the 4 height channels instead of just the 5 we used to use back then. So put your surround base where you like.
How can I get proper distancing with my couch right up against the wall. Pulling it out is not an option. My surrounds are ear level on either side. I have a slanted ceiling too so I won't have much separation between the rear heights and rear surrounds. Any ideas?
I think Wilfried stated that as long as the heights are further from your listening position than your ear-level speakers, you'll notice the difference. Of course, being in an optimal position is better, but give it a try.
Thank you for this video. I'm in the process of upgrading to have an atmos/auro unified set up using the denon 4700. I'm having trouble figuring out the height of my lower level surrounds. They're currently 4 feet off the ground, my couch is basically against the wall and I can't set them up wide because there's not enough space on that back wall. Given my use case, what would be the proper placement for the lower level surrounds?
Hey guys, question. What if I only have 2 height channel. Should I make it like atmos with 80 degrees. Or just under the ceiling on the same distance like my 2 stereo speaker?
Hey guys! If the heights need to be the same distance to the MLP, putting them directly above the fronts actually puts them FURTHER away from the MLP. So mounting them on the ceiling a bit closer to the MLP and directing the speakers correctly seems to be a better fit for both formats...or am I getting my maths wrong?
It is recommended by Wilfried to have the height speakers as close or further away than the corresponding ear-level speaker. Having them closer will not sound right since you're hearing a simulated reflection prior to the direct sound.
@@DailyHiFi Thanks for the reply! Does this mean I'm measuring by sight or actually using my laser measuring tool? If measuring the distance from my left front speaker I get 3 meters to MLP, placing the height speaker in line but a meter and a half towards the MLP, is also 3 meters distance from the MLP. So does that throw the sound off, as techincally thats the same distance... Part of my wall is blocked off by AC, so trying to find the best solution. And thanks for all your hard work guys, been delving through all your videos for weeks before installing my new system.
You just don't want the sound from the height getting to you before the sound of the ear level speaker below it. That's based on the acoustic distance. A laser meter is good. Typically, if the speaker and height speaker are on the same wall, the ear level speaker is placed slightly forward compared to the height. Also, the fact that the height speaker is higher, would mean that the distance to it diagonally is longer.
In my opinion 30° degrees over the front speakers is too little. That makes both speakers too close, giving the impression of sounds coming almost from the same spot.
Wilfried's approach is based on lots of research and science. For Auro-3D the 30 degrees are not "taken out of thin air" or based on Wilfried's "opinion". That said, I acknowledge your point.
This is great if you have proper living space. But, in a moderate-sized one-bedroom apartment it's not feasible. A nine-speaker set-up using 4 height channels, and you still need proper distancing from the listening positioning whether overhead or, behind makes it a no-go for most. Also, there's limited content in the U.S. although, up mixing capabilities with the proper receiver allows for the Auro 3d experience. It's just an even bigger investment. I'll be interested in the Auro soundbar coming out later this year and how it compares to the Ambeo. But, even so, he's said in other interviews you'll need nine or more speakers to get this sound. So, I want to see then how will they create it with just a soundbar and maybe a subwoofer?
There is a dude on here on yt that has a small room, and he has auro 3D layout, and people shiz on him constantly for it lol…but it sounds ok through my headphones though
It’s funny seeing people go nuts about proper speaker placement lol. Do people who are deep into home theater ever truly enjoy their systems?? Do you ever truly enjoy the movies you watch on your systems?? I don’t see how you could if you keep thinking how much better it could be if you did this, if you did that and if you had more/different. When you go to the cinema you plunk your asses down and watch the movie right? Try doing that at home and enjoy your theater. Trust me it sounds good enough my guys
When I go to cinema I assess the sound and then I complain to the cinema manager after the movie. I try to avoid that specific screen till the issue is fixed.
What do you mean? Auro 3D is very popular in Europe and home theaters are becoming more popular after COVID-19 forced many people to spend more time at home.
@@alexandsimba Hollywood and Dolby control all right now. Dolby is Coca-Cola, DTS is Pepsi, and Auro is RC Cola as much as I wish that wasn't true. It would silly to build an Auro theater room. I do like the uomixer for music in my 9.2.6 room, but it's a dead format for movies. Channa is the only UA-camr promoting Auro as having a future, which is why the founder is living on this channel lately.
@@erod9088 obviously you do not understand anything you just heard. Because of Auromatic, every 5.1 PCM content you ever have owned or will by can be analyzed and recreated in the Auro-3d speaker layout. Even Stereo and Mono tracks. What does it matter that you continue to by Dolby Atmos blu-rays with terrible audio tracks and you claim they sound good. And the speaker format is easy to use. Wilfred explains the concept but you still do not get it. You have one thing correct. Dolby did jedi-mind tricked the masses to install their format. But America is unlike the rest of the world. We use feet for measuring while everyone else uses metric system. FEET is BETTER because I am told it is BETTER. Yeesh. That is why Dolby does not even make the effort to explain anything. Why use a fishing rod when the fish just jump into the boat.
@@NightFuryHeiFengxi There are some good Dolby Atmos tracks, but there are several lackluster implementations as well, no doubt. This has everything to do with lazy sound mixers in Hollywood who don't make an effort toward object-based surround. It's supposed to be more than just helicopters and thunder. It's supposed to be triangulated sound. We agree on that. But again, this is about the implementation and use of the format more than the format itself. The movies don't sound like the Arbors demo tracks, and I've heard Dolby is getting frustrated. They were beaten badly by DTS job the last go-round, and now they're back in top, but Hollywood isn't interested in making it a priority of production. Still, it's silly to wire your room just for an Auro uomixer that is likely circling the drain as a business. It's got to do well here too make it long term. The big fear is that sub-30 consumers don't care about big screens and big sound, and everything turns into air pods and laptop production goals.
Using a 7.2.6 (13.2) channel system and after hours of listening to all three formats , Auro 3D is hands down the best compared to other encoding formats like DTS:X and Atmos. Even using Auro 3D on an Atmos soundtrack is superior. For proof just shut down your floor level speaker amps and listen to the heights switching among all three formats. Now I use Auro 3D immersive audio for ALL my listening formats….it’s just that good Thank you Wilfried!
@@jaysbakes37 we have 2 front wides, 2 height middle, and 2 height rear. Place the remaining two as front wides. A good visual in the vid Immersive audio 7.2.6
@@jaysbakes37 front wide over your front floor speakers.
@@jaysbakes37 we have our 2 front wides above the two front floor speakers mounted on the wall. It’s seen in the vid : immersive audio 7.2.6.
To answer Joe's question I use the SVS Prime Elevation as well. I have them on the wall 30 degrees up, but then used a laser level to see where the woofers were directed. I had to "splint" the bottom of the bracket to raise them about 12 degrees in angle so that the woofers were pointing at or just above ear level (flat on the wall they were pointing near my knees)
I think Auro 3D was designed to have the height speakers match your base layer and have them on some kind of mount so you can point them at the MLP just like you do your base layer. Since the SVS have a fixed bracket, I used spacers to offset them the correct amount to have them pointing in the right place.
I seem to constantly be stuck in debates about using the Auro layout for Atmos and DTS:X perhaps some of the smaller things I have done like this are why my setup actually sounds not just OK but great.
If based on your seating position that ceiling mounting them would have them closer to your ear level at the MLP I would go that route instead. Just pick the one that fits closest so you have the least amount of offset needed to correct them.
I do feel wall mounting them in general gives a better angle of attack especially for multiple rows of seating, but in a smaller space I can see how ceiling mounting could be the better choice.
I like you thoughts, I enjoy mine as well. I think the heights are supposed to be pointed above the mlp, so the top of the head. And when you stand up then the heights are at ear level. From what I understand on that document.
Really enjoying this Auro 3D series. Wilfried gets so excited.
Some great points made by your interviewee. (and hats off for his dissing the tired old VHS vs Beta analogy)
Correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like a plain Blu ray disc with DTS HD play just fine.
Help me understand please. If the VOG channel is a single speaker directly over top of the TV, is there also another speaker in the center but below the TV?
I can help you. The center height would but the speaker directly over the top of the TV, and then you still have your ear level center below the TV.
The VOG channel would be a 🔊 directly above your head.
Please someone help me to understand. I replayed this video several times to find the best way to place my speakers in 5.1.4, but I still can't quite understand how to place the rear or side speakers. From 7:15, Wilfried explained how he wished to fill the side gap when 7.1 setup arrived, but he said then he discovered that the Auro-3d 9.1 setup covers the gap between the front and rear speakers, so I assume this is WITHOUT the side speakers, but how exactly should those rear speakers be placed ? Slightly offset from our ears at 110° as shown in the Auro-3d speakers setup video? Or completely behind us, facing the front ear-level speakers? And what about the height back speakers, should they come just above the speakers placed behind us facing the ones on the front, OR they must stay at 110° too?
What he is saying the gap disappears when you add the 4 height channels instead of just the 5 we used to use back then. So put your surround base where you like.
How can I get proper distancing with my couch right up against the wall. Pulling it out is not an option. My surrounds are ear level on either side. I have a slanted ceiling too so I won't have much separation between the rear heights and rear surrounds. Any ideas?
I think Wilfried stated that as long as the heights are further from your listening position than your ear-level speakers, you'll notice the difference. Of course, being in an optimal position is better, but give it a try.
Thank you for this video. I'm in the process of upgrading to have an atmos/auro unified set up using the denon 4700. I'm having trouble figuring out the height of my lower level surrounds. They're currently 4 feet off the ground, my couch is basically against the wall and I can't set them up wide because there's not enough space on that back wall.
Given my use case, what would be the proper placement for the lower level surrounds?
It's more like DTS and Dolby Digital,they both are used and both are on all receivers.
Hey guys, question.
What if I only have 2 height channel.
Should I make it like atmos with 80 degrees. Or just under the ceiling on the same distance like my 2 stereo speaker?
Hey guys! If the heights need to be the same distance to the MLP, putting them directly above the fronts actually puts them FURTHER away from the MLP. So mounting them on the ceiling a bit closer to the MLP and directing the speakers correctly seems to be a better fit for both formats...or am I getting my maths wrong?
It is recommended by Wilfried to have the height speakers as close or further away than the corresponding ear-level speaker. Having them closer will not sound right since you're hearing a simulated reflection prior to the direct sound.
@@DailyHiFi Thanks for the reply!
Does this mean I'm measuring by sight or actually using my laser measuring tool? If measuring the distance from my left front speaker I get 3 meters to MLP, placing the height speaker in line but a meter and a half towards the MLP, is also 3 meters distance from the MLP. So does that throw the sound off, as techincally thats the same distance...
Part of my wall is blocked off by AC, so trying to find the best solution.
And thanks for all your hard work guys, been delving through all your videos for weeks before installing my new system.
You just don't want the sound from the height getting to you before the sound of the ear level speaker below it. That's based on the acoustic distance. A laser meter is good. Typically, if the speaker and height speaker are on the same wall, the ear level speaker is placed slightly forward compared to the height. Also, the fact that the height speaker is higher, would mean that the distance to it diagonally is longer.
@@DailyHiFi Thank you for the clarity, gents.
Ceiling height is your Achilles heel because you can't change it.
In my opinion 30° degrees over the front speakers is too little. That makes both speakers too close, giving the impression of sounds coming almost from the same spot.
Wilfried's approach is based on lots of research and science. For Auro-3D the 30 degrees are not "taken out of thin air" or based on Wilfried's "opinion".
That said, I acknowledge your point.
This is great if you have proper living space. But, in a moderate-sized one-bedroom apartment it's not feasible. A nine-speaker set-up using 4 height channels, and you still need proper distancing from the listening positioning whether overhead or, behind makes it a no-go for most. Also, there's limited content in the U.S. although, up mixing capabilities with the proper receiver allows for the Auro 3d experience. It's just an even bigger investment. I'll be interested in the Auro soundbar coming out later this year and how it compares to the Ambeo. But, even so, he's said in other interviews you'll need nine or more speakers to get this sound. So, I want to see then how will they create it with just a soundbar and maybe a subwoofer?
you are wrong. Its perfect for a small room.
There is a dude on here on yt that has a small room, and he has auro 3D layout, and people shiz on him constantly for it lol…but it sounds ok through my headphones though
It’s funny seeing people go nuts about proper speaker placement lol. Do people who are deep into home theater ever truly enjoy their systems?? Do you ever truly enjoy the movies you watch on your systems??
I don’t see how you could if you keep thinking how much better it could be if you did this, if you did that and if you had more/different. When you go to the cinema you plunk your asses down and watch the movie right? Try doing that at home and enjoy your theater. Trust me it sounds good enough my guys
When I go to cinema I assess the sound and then I complain to the cinema manager after the movie. I try to avoid that specific screen till the issue is fixed.
Lot of hype for a virtually dead format.
What do you mean? Auro 3D is very popular in Europe and home theaters are becoming more popular after COVID-19 forced many people to spend more time at home.
@@alexandsimba Hollywood and Dolby control all right now. Dolby is Coca-Cola, DTS is Pepsi, and Auro is RC Cola as much as I wish that wasn't true. It would silly to build an Auro theater room. I do like the uomixer for music in my 9.2.6 room, but it's a dead format for movies. Channa is the only UA-camr promoting Auro as having a future, which is why the founder is living on this channel lately.
@@erod9088 obviously you do not understand anything you just heard. Because of Auromatic, every 5.1 PCM content you ever have owned or will by can be analyzed and recreated in the Auro-3d speaker layout. Even Stereo and Mono tracks. What does it matter that you continue to by Dolby Atmos blu-rays with terrible audio tracks and you claim they sound good. And the speaker format is easy to use. Wilfred explains the concept but you still do not get it. You have one thing correct. Dolby did jedi-mind tricked the masses to install their format. But America is unlike the rest of the world. We use feet for measuring while everyone else uses metric system. FEET is BETTER because I am told it is BETTER. Yeesh. That is why Dolby does not even make the effort to explain anything. Why use a fishing rod when the fish just jump into the boat.
@@NightFuryHeiFengxi There are some good Dolby Atmos tracks, but there are several lackluster implementations as well, no doubt. This has everything to do with lazy sound mixers in Hollywood who don't make an effort toward object-based surround. It's supposed to be more than just helicopters and thunder. It's supposed to be triangulated sound. We agree on that. But again, this is about the implementation and use of the format more than the format itself. The movies don't sound like the Arbors demo tracks, and I've heard Dolby is getting frustrated. They were beaten badly by DTS job the last go-round, and now they're back in top, but Hollywood isn't interested in making it a priority of production. Still, it's silly to wire your room just for an Auro uomixer that is likely circling the drain as a business. It's got to do well here too make it long term. The big fear is that sub-30 consumers don't care about big screens and big sound, and everything turns into air pods and laptop production goals.