Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
I think it works like this
Product Settings >> Signal Info >>
Channel Allocation – if this is an Atmos – it will show as Atmos. May be Dolby Digital Plus (say Amazon or Netflix)
CODEC – Dolby TrueHD (Atmos is an extension to DTHD)
Output Channel Allocation – 5.0.2 (The number of speakers)
Output Channel Processing – TrueImage (think the is B&Os emulation driver to upmix and downmix automatically)
BeoMedia,
I referred to a hard 5.1 as a non-Atmos surround file (I dont know the correct name but refer to it as immutable). At Atmos file is (I believe by specification) mutable (i.e. soft) that it can go from as many channels and objects it was recorded (say 11.4.6 with 50 tracked objects) and emulate down to the common base of available hardware. i.e. 5.1. It is still Atmos but is not as subtle or spacial as an 11.4.6 system (obviously). This is why I guess fixed array soundbars are sold as Atmos soundbars?
Speaker allocation can be edited as follows:-
Im still waiting for a pair of RJ45 B&O splitters so I can move to 5.2.4 (on 5.2.2). Hopefully they will arrive today.
One interesting fact – and this goes back to some earlier discussions on Dolby Atmos and DTS-X.
Dolby Atmos has a set of designated height channels as standard. DTS-X does not.
However, the way the Theatre and Room-Sense works is initially, when setting up my 5.2.2, (please note, I designate my system as x.2.y because of the BL90 “subs”), the system recognised it as 7.2.
Therefore, with the Theatre, you have to designate the two new channels as height channels – almost like it calibrates like DTS-X?
I suppose (cannot see why) that a 5.1 file that is non-Atmos will distribute sound upwards to a higher sound distribution. i.e a hard 5.1 file can only be a 5.1 sound or less. A hard 5.1 cannot move up to 7.2.4 as it does not have the information.
With the Theatre, it may be possible (I have not tried) to play a hard 5.1 file and assign the surround sides and surround backs to the same channels. i.e. a 7.1 system but sides and backs are assigned the same channel (surround sides) to become 5.1 but 4 loudspeakers play the side/back combination. This would be messy sound and ask why would you?
Contrary to some of my earlier inaccurate posts, full Atmos runs on 21-23 channels and can track 128 objects (I confused channels from objects).
Depending on the number of channels available either in the playback device or the viewing device (Screen and connected audio outputs), D-Atmos will down-mix and emulate a lower-order sound distribution. I guess technically, you can take a full Atmos soundtrack and output to a single centre mono-loudspeaker?
So I have just moved to setting up 2 pairs of BL3s for height on a 5.2.0 system with the theatre. As of now, I have 5.2.2 as I need a RJ45 splitter to complete the 5.2.4
By going from a 5.2.0 to 5.2.2, I notice the overall sound experience is now more subtle as the sound is shared over an extra 2 channels.
Take an aircraft (film like Midway for example). under 5.1, the propeller comes from the side surrounds to the front and centre. Under 7.1, the propeller comes from the backs, side surrounds to the front.
Adding in a pair of heights on 5.1 to 5.1.2, the sound comes from the side surrounds, then is split/expanded vertically between front, side and height giving true atmosphere, before collapsing to the ear-level fronts.
Going to 5.1.4, the sides become atmospheric, moving to the fronts and remain true 3D atmospheric.
That’s how I see, hear and understand the format.
Update.
Just purchased another set of BL3 in white (3 pairs in total now) and a pair of BL17’s
TV/Theatre: BL90 Fronts, 1 pair of BL3 surrounds, 2 pairs of BL3s for height surrounds for Atmos 5.2.4.
Office: Moved 1 pair of BL3s to the living room, and replaced them with a pair of BL17’s as my new office speakers. Don’t have to buy a BL11 now.
Wires everywhere!
My guess is that B&Os room correction system is years ahead of Dirac – or any other comparable system:-
1. Mapping of known speaker sets and their individual performances
2. Decades of adaptive bass control
3. Directivity and sound steering
4. With the BL90, essentially noise-cancelling of opposing driver sets to narrow or widen the sound beam to minimise room reflections.
Although not an expert, I would put Dirac capabilities similar to that of the BL5 in obtaining average room correction. BL5 was singing its stuff in 2003!
Hi.
Not many people here operating passives with the Theatre or Beovisions. Main traffic will be with installing Beolab Actives.
Try this:-
BeoApp >> Theatre >> … >> Product Settings >> Connected Speakers >> Third Party Speakers >> Designate which Powerlink port they are connected to
Obviously, I dont need to tell you that you will be connecting your third party speakers to an external amplifier as the Theatre is only a complicated Receiver with no dedicated amplification for external loudspeakers.
Once connected, I imagine you will have to run room-sense again to calibrate them for sound level, distance, bass control etc…
Hi,
sorry to be a bearer of bad news, but one of the possibilities of this type of behaviour may be a problem with the EPROM/ chassis module.
Did the failure occur after playing very loud or bassy music? If so, the fault could be overheating, but then not resetting itself.
Have you also tried doing a room calibration? That may “wake” the unit up??
Best of luck
Great minds.
Im currently working through this and making my own custom cables for the Theatre Height Surrounds. Ive opted for CAT7 /Class F which is the B&O standard.
This is some background reading.
I think the way the BSTH and BL28/50/90 work in my mind is as I’ve suggested in the last few threads:- namely, if there is a source played through the BSTH, it takes control of the output signal based on the Room-Sense and connected speakers and the baseline speaker profiles B&O painstaking inserted into the BSTH. The signal (I guess) bypasses all of the BL28 calibration, DSP and internal Mozart sources.
When you play a source internal to the BL28 or inject one that is not via the BSTH, that I assume goes via the BL28s DSP. Hence why there is a persecution of sound difference.
I guess the way to test is to recalibrate the BL28’s only with a duvet over each speaker. Then, if the sound is poor in standalone mode but ok as a part of the BSTH, then that should confirm mode of sound correction is different, source dependant?
I may be 180 about turn on this but that is my guess?
It was counter-intuitive to me as well but at the time, the development of the BL90 did not allow the input of USB volume control (Im not sure if it does now or not). However, I opted for the Auralic Vega G2 DAC on the grounds that I could:-
- increase the competency of the G2 by adding incrementally extra improvements over time
- XLR is the defacto cabling system used in most high-end Source to Source equipment
- XLR also fitted in with my speaker placement and source placement (+6m apart – no good for USB)
- But with an option to go digital to digital when the BL90 was capable.
- If I ever wanted to split apart from B&O (and boy o boy I’ve been tempted until recently), the Auralic and BL90 can live together perfectly.
- The Auralic Vega G2 can support DNLA to pipe-in music from my music server (or NAS) – thus compatible with the prior arrangement via the BV.
I think you can get into a rabbit warren of capable streamers. It is a balance of what you want, what you want to pay and perceived quality. It may be there is an all-in-one solution such as the Auralic Altair G1 (discontinued – I have one in the office driving BL3’s – soon to be BL17s) which have a streamer, DAC and can take an internal harddrive (Server) that may suit your needs – but – but the BL50s do not have XLR so you will need to look whether the Altair G1/G2 is suitable in terms of connections.
Other possibilites are to plug-in say an Aries G1/G2 and keep it all digital and include and internal server…..but you need to listen if it is the sound you want.
By adding the Auralic Sirius – a sophisticated up-sampler – native in the G2 series but can be used on the G1, you can take all your 44/16 music files up to DSD512, (which gives a really clean filtration in effect – not more data) before the Lab90/50’s drop it back down to 192 for internal processing. Another meaningful step up sound-wise.
I could go on and on on this but in essence you need to look at the market, swap the Auralic brand for Bluetone, Aurender, DCS, Lumen etc…etc… and find the sound/price that suits you.
Ultimately, I believe you will be impressed in what different 3rd part sources can do compared to B&O Source when playing through the BL50.
isn’t the main difference amongst your 3 scenarios that the first includes the Auralic DAC?
Well yes. But that’s the point. An analogue XLR signal goes into the BL90 and sounds as it should. That means something in the LG Media Player, or whatever converts Deezer (per the OP) to Powerlink Analogue or the Powerlink itself is the source of reduced SQ from what it is to what it could be and that in one sense, shows the latest generation of Beolabs are too transparent for Beovisions (BSTH+LG) and their internal codecs/apps. Older Beolabs benefit from the improved processing
Just adding to my comments above. The real game changer for me with the Theatre (and why I’m smitten with it) is that from BV7-55 to Avant 65 to Eclipse 65, B&O was costing me probably a clear £2 to 2.5K per year in Beovision ownership. That is big cheddar. That is for technological issues, screen burn-ins, DVDs, ML then NL/ML then NL, now Mozart and the interconnectivity of everything else (speakers, sources etc…). Replacing the G2 screen – assuming all else stays the same every 5yrs cuts that cost to less than £400/year.
The Harmony is not going to be a cheap TV (even though the screen panel can be easily replaced) to make and sell. Sure, there is £2-6k in LG C2/G2 panel but then another £15/17/40k in motorised mount depending on chosen screen. There may be a lot more margin for B&O in selling big-screen Harmony’s but I’d wager that there are 20 – 30 -50 Theatres leaving Struer right now for every Harmony built?
Like Beoplay….volumes count.
My feeling is that an upgrade for the Harmony is not so complex as stated here. There is plenty of room in the wings to add upfiring speakers. Only challenge could be the woofers,
OK, but here’s the thing. Beoworlders keep saying these things are never complex but with the exception of (I think BL8002 to BL18), I don’t recall any B&O design getting a technological update. sure there’s a MK1, 2 and 3 on a few models – probably internal parts sourcing. So like where was the 32in Avant with LCD screen?, BC2 with BR?, BS5 with touchscreen, BS9000 with BR compatibility? Upgrade the BV7 with BR? Eclipse with interchangeable Panels?
Lots of great ideas here….but none of them ever happened. I doubt B&O will update or redesign the Harmony (other than for spares replacement). They are more likely to bring a whole new class of model out instead revamping old models looking at past form.
Also, with the so-called Cradle to Cradle philosophy, they may revamp but the Harmony was never designed that way. Then again, Cradle to Cradle may just mean modular servicing of swap parts for +10years rather than anything more dramatic.
Im not 100% certain it is internal loudspeaker room correction. To me, playing music via the LG Media Player and the DNLA network, the music loses a good deal of edge and its like there is a bit of “fog” in the room, while playing via the Auralic is crystal. It may be the Powerlink doing the damage?
Consider three pathways:-
Melco Server >> DNLA Network >> Auralic Streamer (512)>> Auralic DAC >> XLR (Analogue) >> BL90 (ADC 192) = Superb.
Melco Server >> DNLA Network >> Eclipse/LG Media Player >> Powerlink (Analogue) >> BL90 (ADC 192) = “Meh”.
Melco Server >> DNLA Network >> BSTH/New LG Media Player >> Powerlink (Analogue) >> BL90 (ADC 192) = Much better than Eclipse/LG but not close to the Auralic pathway.
Its either BSTH improves the LG Media Player or the new LG Media Player is better than the old app and/or the Powerlink is better?
Finally, BL90/50/28 will most likely have been designed around a “true digital rendering process” and streamline. Older Beolabs 1, 6000, 8000, 9 etc…may have been better receiving from the old true analogue sources. The BSTH sorta bridges the gap between the generations improving older units but not doing as much as the pure digital loudspeakers?
I think what you are experiencing with the BSTH and BL28 is what I have readily experienced with Eclipse/BL90 or latterly, BSTH/BL90. Direct feed to the loudspeaker is significantly “better” (clarity, image, tonal complexion etc..).
I have run room-sense on BL90 only (N/W/O) and BL90+BSTH+BL3 and BSTH Only.
- For TV only, I now mainly run BSTH and no surrounds
- For Films (Netflix/Amazon/Kaleidescape etc..) full 5.1 (Atmos capable next week!!)
- For non-critical music LG Player via the BSTH ro BL90 only
- For critical music (Music server or Qobuz), BL90 via an Auralic stack and XLR.
What is not clear from your post is the Source. I have always been of the opinion that the LG Media Player (DNLA) in the Eclipse was rubbish, less so via eArc/BSTH. Or if you are piping an external source into the BSTH and it is acting as a pre-amp? i.e. is the Media Player or the BSTH causing a degradation in sound quality?
In both our cases, piping music into the loudspeaker directly seems to be the highest quality option.
Not sure what the output signal is with 5.0.2 but sound immersive enough where I’m sat.
Also noted, your screen-shot indicates Apple TV and the Codec is PCM, which suggests either the Apple TV or Theatre is downmixing or I suppose down emulating to the highest playable codec (PCM).
Bullet Train
source: Kaleidescape Server, Dolby Atmos, HDR
Loudspeakers: BL90, BL3, Theatre.
-
AuthorPosts
