Vertical center channel

[Mr Peabody]

I've been meaning to bring this topic up again for a while and a few guys giving Harley grief over his center brought it back to mind. :) I mainly wanted to see how many have experimented with center placement and what your results may have been.

My t2.1 fits horizontally on a shelf below my TV. As a side note it actually sounds better there than it did on top of my old RPTV, I think because below is closer to the level of the mains. Remember a short time back I bought a Klipsch Academy center, it did not fit on the shelf, so I thought what a good time to see how this vertical thing works. It worked very well. I was wondering if it was just the ability of the Academy or the placement. When I put the Dyn's back into place the t2.1 stood vertical and not back on the shelf. The t2.1 sounded better like that, vertically. I think some of it is to do with not being on a shelf and vertical is still even closer to the level of the mains. I'm sure to some extent it has to do with the drawbacks of horizontal placement as well. Just a couple of noticeable improvements the sound from the center was more open and dialog was easier to understand. In case any one wonders I did recalibrate when the Dyn's were put back into place, with the vertical center placement. If I could find a rubber block or something to get the center off the floor I'm sure the improvement would be even better. If my center goes much higher though it will be intruding on the screen. I could afford a couple inches though if I can find the right product or improvise.

[pixelthis]

The only reason centers are wide is to spread the sound out over the length of the
TV screen.
Might sound better on end, because more high freq signals would be shooting towards you
(they are highly directional). I WOULDN'T BLOCK THE SCREEN, even a tad.:1:

[kelsci]

I have never tried a D'Appolito speaker center channel in that manner. I always have had it vertical and it appears to sound correct in that manner for two reasons; one is speech because it emulates the verticalness of our mouths and second because it gives emphasis to the whole surround sound field. I have tried a two way(tweeter over woofer) set-up and I did not get the above results. My brother uses a Mirage Omnistat 5 channel system with one of the Omni's as a center channel. It appears to work well but I would really need to try one on my system to see if that would work better or worse than a D'App. In owning a few D'Apps, I noticed that some of them have two 4 ohm wooferswired in series and one that I have with two twelve ohm wired in parallel. The latter sounds not only better but correct in its phasing. The trouble is that you do not know what you are getting by looking at the speaker.as a whole till you open it up and test the DC resistance(many think this is not important but I assure you it is very important). Many years back, I made a 5 channel dynaquad system in my bedroom consisting of 5 Minimus 7s of which the center channel was one of them. I did get a rather extroadinary perfomance on dialog from dolby surround tracks but it would only work with the rear surrounds near my ceiling and on their sides to get the effect.

If you feel your soundfield is correct then continue doing what you are doing.

[eisforelectronic]

I use a standard bookshelf as a center speaker. I feel the single point source is actually more accurate than the wide dispersion pattern most centers seem to be designed for. I also think the only real reason centers are designed the way they are is just to make them easy to place below or above a tv.

[kelsci]

There is one kind of center channel speaker that I have not tried and that a very few manufacturers make. That is a vertical speaker but the woofer is in the center of the vertical and the tweeter is above it. I think the "box" design being vertical might play a role in center channel sound dispersement. The one good thing you know is that if you measure the dc resistance you should get something between 6 and 8 ohms that it will be in phase with the rest of your speakers.

[kelsci]

I hope this link works. This could be a very nice answer to the original problem

http://www.ohgizmo.com/2011/02/01/screendeck-a-shelf-for-your-tv-things/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Ohgizmo+%28OhGizmo!%29

[Woochifer]

Basically, the horizontal center speaker with the WTW driver arrangement is a compromise that dates back to the CRT days. With a CRT taking up all that space in the middle, a horizontal speaker that could sit on top of a large TV cabinet was the lowest common denominator solution.

With wall-mounted HDTVs, it's now possible to use three identical speakers across the entire front. That's the ideal solution. Tilting a WTW center speaker vertical is yet another compromise. If it sounds better than the horizontal position, then fine. But, it's still less than optimal.

[Tarheel_]

With wall-mounted HDTVs, it's now possible to use three identical speakers across the entire front. That's the ideal solution.

BINGO...that is the ideal solution. I use a monitor that timbre matches my mains and it works great.
Buy 3 identical speakers if you are able.

[Hyfi]

Before I got my new VTI racks, I had no place for the center so I stood it up vertical between the front right and entertainment cabinet I was using. I placed it on top of a 4" thick Granite Toolmakers Surface Plate which was angled up from the floor so the line of sound was directed at the sweet spot and ear level. Other than issues with my old DVD player where the surround usually drowned out the dialog, it worked out fine.

[Feanor]

A few years ago I made my first (and sadly only) DIY speaker, a low-profile centre channel. Looks like this ...

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio//500/medium/199052DIY_center_channel.jpg

But I avoided the MTM approach which tends to limit side-to-side dispersion of the mid-frequencies. (Nowadays this center sits under my 50' plasma.)

I agree that you get better results having all speakers on the same horizontal plain (as much as possible). Vance Dickason was very adamant about this in his Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, (5th ed.).

[Tarheel_]

A few years ago I made my first (and sadly only) DIY speaker, a low-profile centre channel. Looks like this ...

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio//500/medium/199052DIY_center_channel.jpg

But I avoided the MTM approach which tends to limit side-to-side dispersion of the mid-frequencies. (Nowadays this center sits under my 50' plasma.)

I agree that you get better results having all speakers on the same horizontal plain (as much as possible). Vance Dickason was very adamant about this in his Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, (5th ed.).

wow, very nice speaker.

[Woochifer]

But I avoided the MTM approach which tends to limit side-to-side dispersion of the mid-frequencies. (Nowadays this center sits under my 50' plasma.)

I agree that you get better results having all speakers on the same horizontal plain (as much as possible). Vance Dickason was very adamant about this in his Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, (5th ed.).

The D'Appolito arrangement indeed leaves a lot to be desired if the L and R speakers don't follow suit. The best horizontal center speaker I've ever heard (in terms of how well it matches with the mains and blends the front soundstage seamlessly) came from Vandersteen, which uses a coaxial design.


BINGO...that is the ideal solution. I use a monitor that timbre matches my mains and it works great.
Buy 3 identical speakers if you are able.

I would add that movie theaters and mixing stages all use three identical speakers up front. The horizontal center speaker is purely a home-based creation bourne out of aesthetic and functional concerns, rather than optimal performance.

[eisforelectronic]

It takes up a lot of space, but this center sounds great.http://www.audiophysic.de/reference_center/reference_center_3.jpg

[harley .guy07]

Yeah it was kind of a weird deal that everyone was busting my B#lls over my center channel when in most cases a center is only needed when you are not in the sweet spot and for that matter a vertical speaker for center channel use is the preferred way to go anyway so if i did change my center I might try to find a Dynaudio audience bookshelf speaker that I can use to a center but for now my Yamaha does sound much better than people give it credit for without hearing it.

[pixelthis]

BINGO...that is the ideal solution. I use a monitor that timbre matches my mains and it works great.
Buy 3 identical speakers if you are able.

The "ideal" solution is a speaker that can stand up or lay flat. SEVERAL companies
make these, like B&W used to(don't know if they do anymore).
HEARD these once and they sounded great. If you have three conventional speakers
there will be placement problems, usually, unless you mount your flat panel too high,
or use a "talk thru" projector screen. And if you have a DLP like Mr P, A FLAT, wide center is
a must, and still will be a compromise to place.:1:

[Tarheel_]

The "ideal" solution is a speaker that can stand up or lay flat. SEVERAL companies
make these, like B&W used to(don't know if they do anymore).
HEARD these once and they sounded great. If you have three conventional speakers
there will be placement problems, usually, unless you mount your flat panel too high,
or use a "talk thru" projector screen. And if you have a DLP like Mr P, A FLAT, wide center is
a must, and still will be a compromise to place.:1:


It is my understanding that 3 identical speakers produce the best/most realistic sound for HT as there are placement issues no matter what type of speaker you choose. Problem is, as you mentioned, most cannot accommodate this setup.
In a perfect room, if you have front tower speakers then the center should also be the same tower speaker.
I think you can go one step further and suggest the rear speakers should also be towers and all speakers set to = LARGE.

At least this is what i've gathered over the years from this board.

[Woochifer]

It is my understanding that 3 identical speakers produce the best/most realistic sound for HT as there are placement issues no matter what type of speaker you choose. Problem is, as you mentioned, most cannot accommodate this setup.
In a perfect room, if you have front tower speakers then the center should also be the same tower speaker.

Yep, I think that people have been so conditioned over the past decade that center speakers are supposed to be horizontal that they forgot why that compromised alignment was developed in the first place (i.e., to sit on top of a bulky CRT cabinet). With the emergence of flat panel TVs, you now have so many more placement options available.

Three identical speakers up front has been the ideal alignment for reproducing the front soundstage since the original Bell Labs psychoacoustical research came to that conclusion in the 1930s. It's why movie theaters use three identical screen speakers, and why mixing studios use three identical monitors up front.


I think you can go one step further and suggest the rear speakers should also be towers and all speakers set to = LARGE.

Positioning a pair of rear tower speakers in the same horizontal plane as the front speakers would not be ideal in many (if not most) instances. With movie soundtracks (particularly with 2.0 surround sources), you still have a lot of ambient cues, and a rear tower speaker at ear level would sound more like a local point source, leaving a gap in the soundfield.

With those ambient cues, you want some degree of diffusion. That's why Dolby has recommended positioning the surrounds about 2' above ear level and pointed directly at one another.

OTOH, with multichannel music, having everything at the same horizontal plane and pointed directly into the seated position will give you the optimal imaging effect. But, the source has to be mixed with deliberate imaging cues in the surrounds and mains, and that's not always the case.

With my setup, I elevate the surrounds about 18" above ear level and point them directly at one another. For me, that provides just enough diffusion for Pro Logic sources and more ambient 5.1 mixes, and great pinpoint imaging with more surround-optimized 5.1 soundtracks.

[Tarheel_]

Yep, I think that people have been so conditioned over the past decade that center speakers are supposed to be horizontal that they forgot why that compromised alignment was developed in the first place (i.e., to sit on top of a bulky CRT cabinet). With the emergence of flat panel TVs, you now have so many more placement options available.

Three identical speakers up front has been the ideal alignment for reproducing the front soundstage since the original Bell Labs psychoacoustical research came to that conclusion in the 1930s. It's why movie theaters use three identical screen speakers, and why mixing studios use three identical monitors up front.



Positioning a pair of rear tower speakers in the same horizontal plane as the front speakers would not be ideal in many (if not most) instances. With movie soundtracks (particularly with 2.0 surround sources), you still have a lot of ambient cues, and a rear tower speaker at ear level would sound more like a local point source, leaving a gap in the soundfield.

With those ambient cues, you want some degree of diffusion. That's why Dolby has recommended positioning the surrounds about 2' above ear level and pointed directly at one another.

OTOH, with multichannel music, having everything at the same horizontal plane and pointed directly into the seated position will give you the optimal imaging effect. But, the source has to be mixed with deliberate imaging cues in the surrounds and mains, and that's not always the case.

With my setup, I elevate the surrounds about 18" above ear level and point them directly at one another. For me, that provides just enough diffusion for Pro Logic sources and more ambient 5.1 mixes, and great pinpoint imaging with more surround-optimized 5.1 soundtracks.

some great points...i wonder who has heard a true 5.1 surround setup with all speakers set to LARGE? i haven't.

I guess the real question....do studios produce the overall sound mix for home theater or public theater? Based on the answer, did they mix it with full range speakers or monitors or a combination. If we can answer that then we may be closer to what setup we should have at home if we want to reproduce the true theater experience.

[pixelthis]

some great points...i wonder who has heard a true 5.1 surround setup with all speakers set to LARGE? i haven't.

I guess the real question....do studios produce the overall sound mix for home theater or public theater? Based on the answer, did they mix it with full range speakers or monitors or a combination. If we can answer that then we may be closer to what setup we should have at home if we want to reproduce the true theater experience.

Whats the big deal there?
Set all of your speakers to large and you get bass sent to them as well as the woofer.
I have mine set to large(or did before I went to auto calibrate ). Of course all of
mine are large speakers. My rears are floorstanders.
Now, this is rather unconventional, but the bass behind me is great.
AS FOR what the studios mix sound for, thats easy. THE better ones mix for
quality, that works anywhere. BUT FOR MOST (excepting action movies and musicals)
audio has always been the stepchild in the movie biz, most often an afterthought.
ONLY in the last few decades has any real effort been made, relatively speaking to the effort made for the visual side of the medium. The advent of Dolby and DTS were a
big help. DECENT audio is kinda new to the hobby.:1:

[Woochifer]

some great points...i wonder who has heard a true 5.1 surround setup with all speakers set to LARGE? i haven't.

I have, and it indeed can sound impressive if it's setup correctly and if the room is well situated for it. This was a setup with four identical tower speakers all the way around along with the matching center speaker in a large room.

The argument in favor of setting all the speakers to SMALL and rerouting all the lows into the subwoofer has to do with room acoustics and frequency wave interactions. The room locations where the main speakers typically sit do not produce the best bass, and the bass will vary by location, relative to your seated position.

Redirecting the bass into the subwoofer allows you to optimally place the sub in a location where the bass sounds the best. This also allows you the option of further tuning the bass using a parametric equalizer, which IMO is absolutely essential in any small to medium sized if you're serious about high quality sounding bass.

Keeping the speakers set to LARGE maintains the phase and timing coherency better, but in my experience, fixing the acoustical effects has a much greater effect.


I guess the real question....do studios produce the overall sound mix for home theater or public theater? Based on the answer, did they mix it with full range speakers or monitors or a combination. If we can answer that then we may be closer to what setup we should have at home if we want to reproduce the true theater experience.

The original soundtracks for movies get mixed in large screening theaters. The mixes presume that the surround channels will get output into speaker arrays with multiple monitors along the side and backwalls at a theater. This is very different from a home 5.1/7.1 alignment where the surrounds act as point sources. In practice, theaters also use a crossover that directs the bass away from the surround arrays.

For the DVD/BD release, the soundtrack will either use the theatrical mix or get remixed to optimize around the 5.1/7.1 home theater alignment. This type of remixing will put more spatial and directional imaging cues into the surrounds.

In all these cases, I recall that the monitoring is done using full range monitors. But, also keep in mind that these studios are acoustically controlled and generally larger spaces than a home theater. So, they don't have the same degree of room-induced effects in the low frequencies that you have in a typical home.

In actuality, you don't really want a true theater experience. Keep in mind that movie theaters are optimized for large audiences, so they avoid a lot of directional imaging cues. The home theater can optimize for a smaller seated position, so the sound can do a lot more aggressive directional imaging.

[Tarheel_]

I have, and it indeed can sound impressive if it's setup correctly and if the room is well situated for it. This was a setup with four identical tower speakers all the way around along with the matching center speaker in a large room.

The argument in favor of setting all the speakers to SMALL and rerouting all the lows into the subwoofer has to do with room acoustics and frequency wave interactions. The room locations where the main speakers typically sit do not produce the best bass, and the bass will vary by location, relative to your seated position.

Redirecting the bass into the subwoofer allows you to optimally place the sub in a location where the bass sounds the best. This also allows you the option of further tuning the bass using a parametric equalizer, which IMO is absolutely essential in any small to medium sized if you're serious about high quality sounding bass.

Keeping the speakers set to LARGE maintains the phase and timing coherency better, but in my experience, fixing the acoustical effects has a much greater effect.



The original soundtracks for movies get mixed in large screening theaters. The mixes presume that the surround channels will get output into speaker arrays with multiple monitors along the side and backwalls at a theater. This is very different from a home 5.1/7.1 alignment where the surrounds act as point sources. In practice, theaters also use a crossover that directs the bass away from the surround arrays.

For the DVD/BD release, the soundtrack will either use the theatrical mix or get remixed to optimize around the 5.1/7.1 home theater alignment. This type of remixing will put more spatial and directional imaging cues into the surrounds.

In all these cases, I recall that the monitoring is done using full range monitors. But, also keep in mind that these studios are acoustically controlled and generally larger spaces than a home theater. So, they don't have the same degree of room-induced effects in the low frequencies that you have in a typical home.

In actuality, you don't really want a true theater experience. Keep in mind that movie theaters are optimized for large audiences, so they avoid a lot of directional imaging cues. The home theater can optimize for a smaller seated position, so the sound can do a lot more aggressive directional imaging.

Great explanation...thanks for taking the time to inform me.

[Feanor]

I have, and it indeed can sound impressive if it's setup correctly and if the room is well situated for it. This was a setup with four identical tower speakers all the way around along with the matching center speaker in a large room.

The argument in favor of setting all the speakers to SMALL and rerouting all the lows into the subwoofer has to do with room acoustics and frequency wave interactions. The room locations where the main speakers typically sit do not produce the best bass, and the bass will vary by location, relative to your seated position.

Redirecting the bass into the subwoofer allows you to optimally place the sub in a location where the bass sounds the best. This also allows you the option of further tuning the bass using a parametric equalizer, which IMO is absolutely essential in any small to medium sized if you're serious about high quality sounding bass.

Keeping the speakers set to LARGE maintains the phase and timing coherency better, but in my experience, fixing the acoustical effects has a much greater effect.
...
Interesting, Wooch. My center, front, and back speakers all qualify as "large", i.e. can reproduce down to 60 Hz or lower. However Audyssey analyser on my Onkyo receiver set all to "small". I wonder if your explanation is reflected in my case??

[pixelthis]

Yep, I think that people have been so conditioned over the past decade that center speakers are supposed to be horizontal that they forgot why that compromised alignment was developed in the first place (i.e., to sit on top of a bulky CRT cabinet). With the emergence of flat panel TVs, you now have so many more placement options available.

Three identical speakers up front has been the ideal alignment for reproducing the front soundstage since the original Bell Labs psychoacoustical research came to that conclusion in the 1930s. It's why movie theaters use three identical screen speakers, and why mixing studios use three identical monitors up front.



Positioning a pair of rear tower speakers in the same horizontal plane as the front speakers would not be ideal in many (if not most) instances. With movie soundtracks (particularly with 2.0 surround sources), you still have a lot of ambient cues, and a rear tower speaker at ear level would sound more like a local point source, leaving a gap in the soundfield.

With those ambient cues, you want some degree of diffusion. That's why Dolby has recommended positioning the surrounds about 2' above ear level and pointed directly at one another.

OTOH, with multichannel music, having everything at the same horizontal plane and pointed directly into the seated position will give you the optimal imaging effect. But, the source has to be mixed with deliberate imaging cues in the surrounds and mains, and that's not always the case.

With my setup, I elevate the surrounds about 18" above ear level and point them directly at one another. For me, that provides just enough diffusion for Pro Logic sources and more ambient 5.1 mixes, and great pinpoint imaging with more surround-optimized 5.1 soundtracks.

Ah yes, the old argument for "diffusion", in other words creating a mass of sounds from the back, with no sense of direction as to where they are.
THIS made sense in the old pro-logic days, when both rears were the same(the difference information from the front) and diffusion was a good thing, covering up the shortcomings
of the system.
Nowadays we have five or more discrete channels, and some haven't gotten the message.
A great deal has been spent for highly directional sounds to come from all over the place,
only to have some try their level best to have a 2011 system perform like a old
pro-logic system from the eighties, all in the name of a "unified" sound field.
IF YOU CAN HEAR WHERE something is coming from, then your system is messed up, in their opinion, so we must take all of the highly directional sound that is coming from all directions and "diffuse" it into an unintelligible mass.
What good is progress if you are going to undo it? Thats like watching SD when you could be watching HD.:1:

[Woochifer]

Ah yes, the old argument for "diffusion", in other words creating a mass of sounds from the back, with no sense of direction as to where they are.
THIS made sense in the old pro-logic days, when both rears were the same(the difference information from the front) and diffusion was a good thing, covering up the shortcomings
of the system.
Nowadays we have five or more discrete channels, and some haven't gotten the message.
A great deal has been spent for highly directional sounds to come from all over the place,
only to have some try their level best to have a 2011 system perform like a old
pro-logic system from the eighties, all in the name of a "unified" sound field.
IF YOU CAN HEAR WHERE something is coming from, then your system is messed up, in their opinion, so we must take all of the highly directional sound that is coming from all directions and "diffuse" it into an unintelligible mass.
What good is progress if you are going to undo it? Thats like watching SD when you could be watching HD.:1:

The reality is that most movie soundtracks, including 5.1/7.1 sources are still mixed with a lot of ambient cues in the surround channels. If you place the surrounds on the same horizontal plane and point them directly towards the seated position, you wind up with holes in the soundfield with those ambient cues. The reality is that movie soundtracks that were mixed for theatrical release are designed to be diffuse because of how the surround speakers are arranged in a movie theater.

You can't do highly optimized directional imaging cues using a wall of multiple surround speakers. You only get those by optimizing the mix for point source surround channels, which is not how movie theater soundtracks are done (except for IMAX presentations, which are done using point source surrounds). And a lot of 5.1 soundtracks make it onto DVD and BD releases without any remixing for home theater use.

The Dolby arrangement that I discussed in my post was their recommendation for movie soundtracks with a discrete 5.1 alignment. Has nothing to do with Pro Logic. I use height-adjustable stands and the 18" height above ear level that I use gives me the best surround performance for the widest range of sources. Aiming them directly towards the listening position and lowering them to match the height of the mains would better optimize some sources, but what a pain to change the height and reposition the surround speakers everytime I switch between different types of soundtracks.

[pixelthis]

The reality is that most movie soundtracks, including 5.1/7.1 sources are still mixed with a lot of ambient cues in the surround channels. If you place the surrounds on the same horizontal plane and point them directly towards the seated position, you wind up with holes in the soundfield with those ambient cues. The reality is that movie soundtracks that were mixed for theatrical release are designed to be diffuse because of how the surround speakers are arranged in a movie theater.

You can't do highly optimized directional imaging cues using a wall of multiple surround speakers. You only get those by optimizing the mix for point source surround channels, which is not how movie theater soundtracks are done (except for IMAX presentations, which are done using point source surrounds). And a lot of 5.1 soundtracks make it onto DVD and BD releases without any remixing for home theater use.

The Dolby arrangement that I discussed in my post was their recommendation for movie soundtracks with a discrete 5.1 alignment. Has nothing to do with Pro Logic. I use height-adjustable stands and the 18" height above ear level that I use gives me the best surround performance for the widest range of sources. Aiming them directly towards the listening position and lowering them to match the height of the mains would better optimize some sources, but what a pain to change the height and reposition the surround speakers everytime I switch between different types of soundtracks.

OF course it has nothing to do with pro logic. Such very smart people on this board
to have such poor reading comprehension skills.
WHAT I said was that its ridiculous to smear a multichannel soundfield so that it
resembles a prologic system from the eighties. IF THATS what you want ,fine,
but why not save money by setting up a pro logic system? BE A LOT CHEAPER.
When DVD came out with DD and DTS it was the answered promise that pro-logic
never quite delivered on. DISCRETE sounds coming from all around, making for some
cool experiences.
Is it what the movie was mixed for? Who cares? Its a huge improvement, except for the times I have gotten up to answer a nonexistent doorbell or phone.
THE first time I heard someone walking and talking from rear left to right WAS REALLY NICE. Was the movie mixed for such a discrete soundfield? WHO CARES?
Everybody else has moved on.
PLASMA BECAUSE it resembles a CRT picture (being basically a squished crt).
Tubes because they make modern gear sound like an old Philco radio from the fourties,
and we all know thats the way sound is supposed to be.
AND A NICE DIFFUSED , muddy non-directional soundfield, lets set our system up like that because thats the way it always has been, who cares about lossless full freq
five to seven channels of sound? WE CAN FIX THAT we can diffuse and "blend"
all of that together for something called a "unified" soundfield.
Think I see a pattern here.:1:

[Woochifer]

OF course it has nothing to do with pro logic. Such very smart people on this board
to have such poor reading comprehension skills.
WHAT I said was that its ridiculous to smear a multichannel soundfield so that it
resembles a prologic system from the eighties. IF THATS what you want ,fine,
but why not save money by setting up a pro logic system? BE A LOT CHEAPER.

It has nothing to do with "smearing" the multichannel soundfield. It has to do with acknowledging that a lot of sound sources are not going to sound very good if you position the surrounds strictly as point sources.


When DVD came out with DD and DTS it was the answered promise that pro-logic
never quite delivered on. DISCRETE sounds coming from all around, making for some
cool experiences.
Is it what the movie was mixed for? Who cares? Its a huge improvement, except for the times I have gotten up to answer a nonexistent doorbell or phone.
THE first time I heard someone walking and talking from rear left to right WAS REALLY NICE. Was the movie mixed for such a discrete soundfield? WHO CARES?

Discrete tracks are still mixed with ambient cues, and if the soundtrack is not remixed for home theaters, then it's not optimized for a point source alignment. That's why both Dolby and THX recommend the surround placement above the ear level. Are you suggesting that they don't know what they're talking about?


AND A NICE DIFFUSED , muddy non-directional soundfield, lets set our system up like that because thats the way it always has been, who cares about lossless full freq
five to seven channels of sound? WE CAN FIX THAT we can diffuse and "blend"
all of that together for something called a "unified" soundfield.
Think I see a pattern here.:1:

Raising the surround speakers and pointing them at one another does not create a "muddy non-directional soundfield". If it did, I wouldn't have my surrounds positioned like that. What it does is fill in the soundfield just enough so that all sources don't have gaps, while still retaining the directional imaging cues from remixed 5.1/7.1 soundtracks.

My adjustable stands give me the option of lowering and raising the surrounds however high or low I want. I've actually tried multiple alignments and heights with the surrounds, so I know how different surround setups sound with different sources. No substitute for first hand experience, right?

[pixelthis]

Raising the surround speakers and pointing them at one another does not create a "muddy non-directional soundfield". If it did, I wouldn't have my surrounds positioned like that. What it does is fill in the soundfield just enough so that all sources don't have gaps, while still retaining the directional imaging cues from remixed 5.1/7.1 soundtracks.


My adjustable stands give me the option of lowering and raising the surrounds however high or low I want. I've actually tried multiple alignments and heights with the surrounds, so I know how different surround setups sound with different sources. No substitute for first hand experience, right?
[/QUOTE]
not if you don't learn from it.
I HAD a complete set of KLIPSCH, you would have loved it. LARGE bookshelves in front,
slightly smaller in back, and higher.
Having floorstanders in the back came from getting my B&W speakers back. THE DM305"S actually had more "air", but the 602s2 was more competent all around.
LOOKS WEIRD, but until I hit the lottery thats it. The smaller but more sophisticated
bookshelves in front. HOW ARE THE SET UP? With a shack meter at first, then I let Auddessy take over. Did a much better job than I EVER COULD. Doesn't matter (much)
where you set those suckers, the auto setup has it figured out. The machines are
taking over.
BTW larger speakers in back means more even bass. AS FOR "FIRST HAND" experience, which in my case means hundreds of hours doin the "speaker shuffle"
it has all been negated by a brain on a chip.
Aint progress grand?:1:

[Woochifer]

not if you don't learn from it.
I HAD a complete set of KLIPSCH, you would have loved it. LARGE bookshelves in front,
slightly smaller in back, and higher.
Having floorstanders in the back came from getting my B&W speakers back. THE DM305"S actually had more "air", but the 602s2 was more competent all around.
LOOKS WEIRD, but until I hit the lottery thats it. The smaller but more sophisticated
bookshelves in front. HOW ARE THE SET UP? With a shack meter at first, then I let Auddessy take over. Did a much better job than I EVER COULD. Doesn't matter (much)
where you set those suckers, the auto setup has it figured out. The machines are
taking over.
BTW larger speakers in back means more even bass. AS FOR "FIRST HAND" experience, which in my case means hundreds of hours doin the "speaker shuffle"
it has all been negated by a brain on a chip.
Aint progress grand?:1:

Yet, the delay, phase, and EQ adjustments that the Audyssey performs still cannot correct for sound dispersion patterns. You can only account for that with the height and alignment positioning. This is what Dolby and THX recommend, and that applies whether or not you use auto-calibration.

[pixelthis]

Yet, the delay, phase, and EQ adjustments that the Audyssey performs still cannot correct for sound dispersion patterns. You can only account for that with the height and alignment positioning. This is what Dolby and THX recommend, and that applies whether or not you use auto-calibration.

something to play with, anyway.
But after calibration my system sounded so good I was scared to touch anything.:1: