Ok, this is probably the wrong forum for this, but as I posted earlier I bought brand new 2309ci. I'm so excited to get this thing hooked up in the next week.

Anyway, my question is do my surround speakers (5.1 setup btw) have to be at the same height as my fronts?

And that brings up another question... does the center channel have to be at the same height as front left and front right?

I will be hooking up 5 Mirage Nanosats (2 front, 2 surround, 1 center) and a Mirage sub. Unfortunately, due to the way my living room is configured, I won't be able to put my rear speaks at the same height as the front.

I think I heard if you mount the Nanosats over 6 feet, you should mount them upside down... or facing downward. So, I will be putting them roughly at 6feet... not over because mounting them the way the suggest when over 6 feet would look funny. However, my rear speakers will probably only be maybe like 3 feet or 4 feet. Will this cause a major problem?

I know some say ear level for the fronts, but I think that would look bad in my place. It would be great to mount them up high close the ceiling because this would look the best, but then you have to mount these mirages upside down or something stupid like that.

Thanks,
Doug

Ideally all 5 speakers would be the same speaker model (which it looks like you have) and of course all the same hight tweeter at ear level. Most people mistakenly buy a detected center when they could have just as easily used the same as the mains. Also many buy dipoles (some prefer the defused sound but I despise (no highs no lows must be dipoles)) without an understanding of the difference between them and monopoles.

You don't want to mount your fronts up high. This will be obviously an audio distraction and acoustics will suffer greatly.

Front LCR tweeters at ear level. If you have to place the center below, angle it up.

Surrounds should be about two feet above ear level.

Speaker placement is critical for a "surround effect".

do my surround speakers (5.1 setup btw) have to be at the same height as my fronts? ... does the center channel have to be at the same height as front left and front right?

All speakers should be the same height, with the tweeters at ear level. Examples and explanation here:

How to set up a room (http://www.realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm)

And the "standards" mix engineers follow (which you should follow too) are here:

Grammy surround standards (http://www.grammy.com/pdfs/recording_academy/producers_and_engineers/5_1_rec.pdf)

--Ethan

If you are mounting your fronts at 6ft, and provided the plane of your ears is probably ~half that, then I would mount them upside-down. But, honestly, they should be mounted closer to (or even below) ear-level and right-side-up. If you do that, your surrounds will end up mounted at or near the same height as your fronts. Otherwise, you can set things up however you like. Optimal placement is often not achievable and compromises must often be made. But be aware that mounting your surrounds considerably lower than your fronts is probably the least optimal situation. Equal height or a bit higher for the surround speakers is the norm.

Regarding the center speaker, assuming the fronts are at the correct height, identical height for all 3 speakers across the front is ideal. But this is often not doable. So, you do the best you can. If you must mount your center well above the plane of your ears, then I would mount it upside-down, too.

Ideally all 5 speakers would be the same speaker model (which it looks like you have) and of course all the same hight tweeter at ear level.

All speakers should be the same height, with the tweeters at ear level.

Surrounds at ear level:rolleyes:

Since when?

The problem with tweeters at ear level is that if you are sitting at the edge on a sofa, the person who sits nearest a surround, that persons head is in the way for treble to propagate towards Me, who sits at the other end of the sofa.

Hope you understand what I mean. Im not against the idea of surrounds at the same level as the fronts, I just disagree that the tweeter will be heard properly.

Robert

Surrounds at ear level:rolleyes:

Since when?
Since always. Your ears are externally good at determining the direction sound comes from. So if the sound is above or below your ears you will be able to perceive that and it will be unnatural (especially listening to music). If you use dipoles (what a terrible design for HT) then you can get away with placement a little more because of the out of phase diffused nature of the sound.


EDIT: Oddly I gust clicked on YOUR My HT link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1123134)and your surrounds appear to be on OEM stands and the same hight as your mains (rears about the same hight too).:eek: So since your setup with surrounds (and rears) are at ear hight why are you questioning it?:confused:

Since always.

Exactly. Program material like DVDs meant for viewing in a home theater have the correct frequency response and ambience etc built into the sound track. If a speaker is substantially above ear height you will not get the correct frequency response.

Also, the idea that the rear of a home theater room should add its own ambience to that of the surround channels is misguided. DVDs are mixed in rooms that are mostly dead, with the speakers setup as described in the Grammy doc I linked above. If you want to hear what the mix engineers intended, you should set up your room the same way.

--Ethan

Ideally all 5 speakers would be the same speaker model (which it looks like you have) and of course all the same hight tweeter at ear level. Most people mistakenly buy a detected center when they could have just as easily used the same as the mains. Also many buy dipoles (some prefer the defused sound but I despise (no highs no lows must be dipoles)) without an understanding of the difference between them and monopoles.

You don't want to mount your fronts up high. This will be obviously an audio distraction and acoustics will suffer greatly.

What is a detected center?

Just kidding. I think you must have meant dedicated.

Since always. Your ears are externally good at determining the direction sound comes from. So if the sound is above or below your ears you will be able to perceive that and it will be unnatural (especially listening to music). If you use dipoles (what a terrible design for HT) then you can get away with placement a little more because of the out of phase diffused nature of the sound.

So if you angle them downward toward your listening position that should work too?

FWIW, I have never been to a movie theater that has had surround speakers at ear height.

Since always. Your ears are externally good at determining the direction sound comes from. So if the sound is above or below your ears you will be able to perceive that and it will be unnatural (especially listening to music). If you use dipoles (what a terrible design for HT) then you can get away with placement a little more because of the out of phase diffused nature of the sound.


EDIT: Oddly I gust clicked on YOUR My HT link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1123134)and your surrounds appear to be on OEM stands and the same hight as your mains (rears about the same hight too).:eek: So since your setup with surrounds (and rears) are at ear hight why are you questioning it?:confused:

If I am not mistaken, both Dolby and THX recommend them above ear-height

If I am not mistaken, both Dolby and THX recommend them above ear-height

THX recommends that they be 2 feet or higher above the listener.

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/51.html

If I am not mistaken, both Dolby and THX recommend them above ear-height

Which just goes to show that even experts can disagree. :D None the less, the logic behind having all speakers the same height, at ear level, is undeniable.

I believe the idea for having surrounds higher comes from the early days of Dolby in large theaters (venues, not home theaters). Back then there was only one mono surround channel, so putting speakers up high on the rear wall of the theater added a sense of space. But that space derived from the theater's own large room. This does not apply today with 5.1 discrete channels in a small room that's mostly dead sounding. These days movies are mixed with 5.1 channels in mind, and all ambience is already present in the mixes.

Again, the key point is you want the flattest response from your speakers, which means you must be on-axis with the tweeters, which means at ear level. Surround channels don't only have ambience! If all we cared about was ambience effects, then losing the extreme highs would not be a big loss. If you play the THX intro from a DVD you'll hear all sorts of stuff flying around the room!

--Ethan

Which just goes to show that even experts can disagree. :D None the less, the logic behind having all speakers the same height, at ear level, is undeniable.

[COLOR="Red"]The logical thing to do is have the speakers on axis. Not necessarily at ear level.COLOR]


I believe the idea for having surrounds higher comes from the early days of Dolby in large theaters (venues, not home theaters). Back then there was only one mono surround channel, so putting speakers up high on the rear wall of the theater added a sense of space. But that space derived from the theater's own large room. This does not apply today with 5.1 discrete channels in a small room that's mostly dead sounding. These days movies are mixed with 5.1 channels in mind, and all ambience is already present in the mixes.

This sounds more like an opinion against multi-pole speakers. I agree with this one. :)

Again, the key point is you want the flattest response from your speakers, which means you must be on-axis with the tweeters, which means at ear level. Surround channels don't only have ambience! If all we cared about was ambience effects, then losing the extreme highs would not be a big loss. If you play the THX intro from a DVD you'll hear all sorts of stuff flying around the room!

--Ethan

There is nothing at all wrong with following THX and dolby's recommendations and positioning speakers above ear level and having them angled slightly downward toward the listening position. The same thing can be accomplished as far as ambience, spatial cues and directional cues that would be accomplished with speakers at ear level, without having one blaring into your ears from as little as a foot away by mounting them higher than your listening position.

There is nothing at all wrong with following THX and dolby's recommendations and positioning speakers above ear level and having them angled slightly downward toward the listening position...

Dolby does not recommend this. Dolby recommends (http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_entertainment/speaker-setup-guide/index.html) monopoles at ear level.

THX is for the theater and all their home recommendations and settings are adapted for a large venue theater and not really applicable (or good for a HT). The object of using dipoles mounted above the seats is to try and offer a semi "sweet spot" to everyone in the theater. This is not necessary in a properly designed HT. Also I'm interested in one super "sweet spot" instead of a bunch of semi "sweet spots".

I can't get that Dolby link to show anything when I click the 5.1 system. But the THX site I linked to abve clearly states at least 2 feet above the listener.

This site (http://www.dvd-recordable.org/Reviews+index-req-showcontent-id-194.phtml) suggests putting them "slightly to the rear of the listener and above head height facing inwards towards the listening area".

In principal I agree with you about using mono-poles, that is what I have found to work best for me. Your comments about THX show that you don't understand what it is they are trying to accomplish. They want people to be able to expirience what sound engineers hear in the larger venues, in your own HT. That being said I have never been in a THX certified theater and I know that my own HT sounds better than what I have ever heard at a theater. Maybe a THX theater would sound better, I don't know.

This site (http://stonessoundstudio.com.au/stone/roomlayout.html) also recommends surrounds be above ear level.

Audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/tweaks/speaker-setup-guidelines/home-theater-speaker-layout-an-essential-guide) recommends at least 2 feet above ear level.

Optimum surround height will vary with the room.

It is important that each listener can see each tweeter in the system when all seats are occupied. I do not find surrounds being mounted high to be a big disadvantage in theater sound. While too low, too close or too far forward can be a huge disadvantage.

Optimum surround height will vary with the room.

It is important that each listener can see each tweeter in the system when all seats are occupied. I do not find surrounds being mounted high to be a big disadvantage in theater sound. While too low, too close or too far forward can be a huge disadvantage.

'nuff said. ;)

I can't get that Dolby link to show anything when I click the 5.1 system...

Here you go (http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/zz-_Shared_Assets/English_PDFs/Consumer/Dolby-Home-Theatre-Speaker-Guide-5.1-6-8.pdf). It also looks like Dolby recommends B&W 800 series.:D

Here you go (http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/zz-_Shared_Assets/English_PDFs/Consumer/Dolby-Home-Theatre-Speaker-Guide-5.1-6-8.pdf). It also looks like Dolby recommends B&W 800 series.:D

Where in this document does it speak about surround height? I couldn't find it.

Thanks William. ;)

HD-newbie: it doesn't, the diagram just shows them at ear level.

There is nothing at all wrong with ... positioning speakers above ear level and having them angled slightly downward toward the listening position.

Having speakers not at ear level and making up for that with angling has its own set of problems. The frequency response will vary as you lean forward and back when your ears go in and out of being on-axis. How bad this will be depends on how far you are from the speakers.

--Ethan

Where in this document does it speak about surround height? I couldn't find it.

A picture is worth a thousand words. ;) ...and since there are two pictures showing them at ear level then I guess it's worth two thousand words.:D

Having speakers not at ear level and making up for that with angling has its own set of problems. The frequency response will vary as you lean forward and back when your ears go in and out of being on-axis. How bad this will be depends on how far you are from the speakers.

--Ethan

Okay now I've heard it all. You think that frequency response varys by leaning forward and backward only when the speaker is mounted above ear level and angled downward? :rolleyes: That will happen anytime the speaker is on your side, regardless of height.

You're right about one thing though, how bad it will be depends on how far from the speakers you are. The closer to a speaker you are, any movements will result in being more off axis than if you were farther away.

Easy cure for that? Mount the speakers above ear level.

A picture is worth a thousand words. ;) ...and since there are two pictures showing them at ear level then I guess it's worth two thousand words.:D

well. In Dolby's website itself it says: "These speakers are designed to be just above ear level".

Clink on the link below and select 7.1:

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_entertainment/speaker-setup-guide/index.html

well. In Dolby's website itself it says: "These speakers are designed to be just above ear level".

Clink on the link below and select 7.1:

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_entertainment/speaker-setup-guide/index.html

I agree with just above ear level is fine and better than below since the back of the chair would hinder the sound. ;) It's hanging them several feet above your ears that's not a good idea as was asked by the OP and suggested by others. My mains and rears are about 1" to 3" above my listening ear level (depending on how much alcohol is involved:D). Too bad my center is stuck 2' below.

To the OP: Lots of great information was posted for you to chew on. But please keep in mind several points: everyone has different preferences; what sounds good in your room may not sound good in mine; and the specs (be it Dolby, THX, etc) are just guidelines. My advice is, after getting all the info from AVSForum, experiment with speaker heights, angles, tilting, etc.

-T

I agree with just above ear level is fine and better than below since the back of the chair would hinder the sound. ;) It's hanging them several feet above your ears that's not a good idea as was asked by the OP and suggested by others. My mains and rears are about 1" to 3" above my listening ear level (depending on how much alcohol is involved:D). Too bad my center is stuck 2' below.

Regarding my surrounds, all 4 tweeters are above ear level. My side surrounds are mounted on stands with 4'' wooden risers underneath to raise them to an acceptable level.

So now you're backtracking saying that "just above" is fine.....yet you said that its ideal to have the surround tweeters at ear level. And who mentioned anything about "below ear level"?

It doesnt matter....Dolby recommends above to create more "ambiance" and I would think less localization. THX recommends it as well. So I think I'll stick with their guidelines. If it was just for MC music or DVD-A, then yes, that is a different story but for HT, above ear level is the way to go.

...So now you're backtracking saying that "just above" is fine.....yet you said that its ideal to have the surround tweeters at ear level. And who mentioned anything about "below ear level"?....

First you should read what the OP was wanting to do:
...It would be great to mount them up high close the ceiling...
Now you can split hairs and imply that by saying ear level that I must be talking about using a laser level to get the tweeters to .5" or less of my ear. That is not what I meant I deeply apologize for not using the phrase "about ear hight" and for being so imprecise that you couldn't understand what I was saying to the OP.

So here is a better explanation of what I was trying to convey to the OP and I hope l will pass your strict litmus test:

By placing the tweeter slightly (please interpret the world slightly as just above and not up near the ceiling) you also put the midrange closer to ear level and end up with a more balanced and will blended sound directed towards your ear.

So I will rephrase my response to you. Your speakers are not mounted up high on the wall (like so may do with dipoles and THX recommends (http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/51.html)). Your speakers are mounted near or about ear level (like Dolby recommends and I have also).

I have been using the Nanosat system for jus tover a year. If I am not mistaken it isn't actually a dipole speaker, it is just the way the speakers are designed give the sound a wide dispertion. For a whole 5.1 setup it isn't too bad. Granted it may not be prime setup but it works rather well. I personally like the omni directional speaker sound for my surrounds. Really fills in the surrounds like I am sitting in a movie theater. May not be up to THX specs or Dolby, but does it really matter if it works that well in ones house? Now I can't wait to finally get my new floorstanders and new center in place, like I said they work ok but....after a while it is time to upgrade to something a bit better. I don't care for them as a center channel for sure.

As for mounting them at different heights I don't think I would recomend that. If I remember right even the manual mentions something to the effect.

My first 4.0 system, with small satellite speakers, allowed me to position them in many spaces and places. Since my initial setup, I have found the rears higher works best in MY room

However, I think it only matters the distance from the ears to the rears that dictate how high they should be placed. In my space I have the rear surrounds (and the normal surrounds) a good eight feet or more away from the listening position about 2 feet higher than the mains. If they were closer, as I have done, I would position them differently.

In a 6.1 surround I have placed the rear on the floor behind the couch, aimed up, and that worked well. In 7.1 I have aimed the near ear level surrounds at the back wall.

As others have said, find out what works best where you can close your eyes, and the sound creates its magic. You are no longer aware where the sound is coming from, but the sound surrounds you.

My first 4.0 system, with small satellite speakers, allowed me to position them in many spaces and places. Since my initial setup, I have found the rears higher works best in MY room

However, I think it only matters the distance from the ears to the rears that dictate how high they should be placed. In my space I have the rear surrounds (and the normal surrounds) a good eight feet or more away from the listening position about 2 feet higher than the mains. If they were closer, as I have done, I would position them differently.

In a 6.1 surround I have placed the rear on the floor behind the couch, aimed up, and that worked well. In 7.1 I have aimed the near ear level surrounds at the back wall.

As others have said, find out what works best where you can close your eyes, and the sound creates its magic. You are no longer aware where the sound is coming from, but the sound surrounds you.


Yours is a nice suggestion for someone who is experienced and who has messed around with speakers many times but not for someone who is doing this the first time. I don't know OP's comfort level, but if this is his/her first system, I would recommend picking either Dolby or THX school and then following it to the T, as allowed by the room shape.

All speakers should be the same height, with the tweeters at ear level.

And the "standards" mix engineers follow (which you should follow too) are here:

Grammy surround standards (http://www.grammy.com/pdfs/recording_academy/producers_and_engineers/5_1_rec.pdf) A careful reading of the Grammy document states: >> there are often physical conditions (such as room size or dimension) beyond the control of the engineer that dictate speaker placement in the professional mixing environment, and there is certainly no way to control how a consumer listening to surround sound situates their speakers. For these reasons, there is no intrinsically "correct" way to position speakers for surround sound production.<<

>> Some surround mixing engineers prefer to raise the rear wall speakers slightly higher than the front wall.<<

If there is no intrinsically correct way to position speakers in a production studio, then there’s no basis to conclude they should be at ear level at home.

The problem with tweeters at ear level is that if you are sitting at the edge on a sofa, the person who sits nearest a surround, that persons head is in the way for treble to propagate towards Me, who sits at the other end of the sofa.

Hope you understand what I mean. Im not against the idea of surrounds at the same level as the fronts, I just disagree that the tweeter will be heard properly. Exactly! Homes with a row or two of people is rather a different situation to that of a mixing engineer alone in his 5.1 cocoon. Movies are mixed in dubbing stages—that is perhaps the more apt reference for a home theater.


Also, the idea that the rear of a home theater room should add its own ambience to that of the surround channels is misguided. DVDs are mixed in rooms that are mostly dead, with the speakers setup as described in the Grammy doc I linked above. If you want to hear what the mix engineers intended, you should set up your room the same way. Did you read in there something saying the room should be dead? It actually states: >>The goal of creating the best average presentation across the main speakers in a surround sound environment can best be attained by having more diffusion in the mixing environment rather than less. A neutral, as opposed to absorptive, monitoring room is optimum.<< >>There should be as much diffusion as a budget will allow. From simply deploying everyday furniture and artifacts (shelves and bookcases, marble statuettes of one's significant other, etc.) to full-on quadratic residue diffusers, increasing diffusion helps flatten the spectral response of a room. To summarize: the more uniform (diffuse) the ambience in the professional mixing environment, the more site-independent the resultant mixes will be.<<

"there are often physical conditions (such as room size or dimension) beyond the control of the engineer"

Sure, but it's a leap to conclude from that comment that "If there is no intrinsically correct way to position speakers in a production studio, then there’s no basis to conclude they should be at ear level at home."

There is indeed an intrinsically correct way to position speakers. The reason to have them at ear level is to ensure a flat response by being on-axis with the tweeters. It's not like any random height will give the same result. The higher the speakers are for a given distance from your ears, the worse the HF response will be. At least for the normal box speakers that most people use.

Did you read in there something saying the room should be dead?

No, that's my personal opinion. Small untreated rooms sound small because of all the reflections from nearby surfaces. When the walls and ceiling are near, the reflections are strong and also early. So by minimizing those reflections the room is made to sound larger than it really is. This is a Good Thing IMO.

There should be as much diffusion as a budget will allow.

I totally agree with that! Unfortunately, good diffusion costs a lot more than good absorption, whether one buys commercials diffusors or makes their own. For this reason I often suggest absorption in smaller rooms, and at reflection points I find absorption to be superior to diffusion. But there are many other places in a listening room where diffusion is great, such as the rear wall behind the listeners.

--Ethan

Sure, but it's a leap to conclude from that comment that "If there is no intrinsically correct way to position speakers in a production studio, then there’s no basis to conclude they should be at ear level at home." I thought you were referencing the Grammy doc to justify ear level surround speakers. My mistake.

No, that's my personal opinion. Small untreated rooms sound small because of all the reflections from nearby surfaces. When the walls and ceiling are near, the reflections are strong and also early. So by minimizing those reflections the room is made to sound larger than it really is. This is a Good Thing IMO. Not at issue. I thought you were referencing the Grammy doc to justify dead rooms. My mistake.

If you do agree that there should be as much diffusion as budget will allow in a home theater, and "there are many other places in a listening room where diffusion is great, such as the rear wall behind the listeners," is that not rather opposite your other statement: "the idea that the rear of a home theater room should add its own ambience to that of the surround channels is misguided"? Isn't a diffuse soundfield a form of ambience?

Isn't a diffuse soundfield a form of ambience?

Yes, but it's a very different sounding ambience than what you get off bare reflecting walls. With diffusion, the sound is scattered around the room rather than reflected directly back at you. So it travels farther before getting back to your ears, and the longer distances help to avoid that small-room sound.

My own preference for listening rooms is to be more on the dead side, but I understand that some people prefer more live sounding. That's fine, as long as many/most of the direct early reflections are avoided or at least redirected.

Again, the main point for me is that having speakers with their tweeters at ear level avoids the lost highs you get when they're above your head.

--Ethan

Maybe I am missing something here. Seems like everyone is seeking a "dead" room, yet there are professional sound mixers who say your room should not be dead. Is this what I am seeing here? I can understand why one woul dwant some reflection in a room, but could never understand why you'd want a "dead" or "flat" room. Anytime I hear music live the room is certainly not "flat" or "dead", is is full of good reflective sound. If the intent is to create a life like sound why kill the reflections? Even in nature there is reflection!! Like I said maybe I am missing something here.

Again, the main point for me is that having speakers with their tweeters at ear level avoids the lost highs you get when they're above your head. A small loss in HF due to raised surrounds is not only a reasonable tradeoff for better lateral coverage of multiple seats, but it mitigates the need for "timber matching" HF shelving EQ as needed due to the direct "into the ear" side HRTF vs front L/C/R HRTFs.

Maybe I am missing something here. Seems like everyone is seeking a "dead" room, yet there are professional sound mixers who say your room should not be dead. Is this what I am seeing here? I can understand why one woul dwant some reflection in a room, but could never understand why you'd want a "dead" or "flat" room. Anytime I hear music live the room is certainly not "flat" or "dead", is is full of good reflective sound. If the intent is to create a life like sound why kill the reflections? Even in nature there is reflection!! Like I said maybe I am missing something here.

Agreed. IMHO a room needs both hard and soft materials to sound natural. The "dead room" concept follows along the idea of the ideal in "flatness". A flat speaker in an anechoic chamber is a testing method, not a listening method.

An engineer wants to put x+y into their black box and always get the same z result. An artist puts x+y in and hopes for a thru z.

A small loss in HF due to raised surrounds is not only a reasonable tradeoff for better lateral coverage of multiple seats

As soon as the word "trade-off" is introduced, then it becomes a matter of opinion rather than science. I prefer all speakers at ear level for the reasons I stated, but if you do not that's okay with me.

--Ethan

Maybe I am missing something here ... Anytime I hear music live the room is certainly not "flat" or "dead", is is full of good reflective sound. If the intent is to create a life like sound why kill the reflections?

Yes, you are missing something. A recording made in a venue already contains the natural ambience of that venue. Or, if the recording was made in a studio, all desired ambience was added electronically. Either way, the point is that the sound as intended by the engineers is already present in the recording. Adding more from the room you listen in can only degrade the sound. Especially if the listening room is small and adds a "small room" sound.

--Ethan

Well I agree that this is true sometimes what about a solid soundboard recording of a show or performance? I highly doubt that they add ambience into a recording direct from a mixing board at a show. There are some who have done a matrix as it was once called, not sure now, but they used the soundboard recording and added in a single mic above the board to introduce some crowd and "room" ambience. However that mic was not always in the mix or very far back in the mix. However I personally like the effects a room can have on music as well as movies. Just my personal choice, not saying anyone is right or wrong just depends on your ears I suppose. However I do thank you for the input as to why one wants a "dead" room.

Yes, you are missing something. A recording made in a venue already contains the natural ambience of that venue. Or, if the recording was made in a studio, all desired ambience was added electronically. Either way, the point is that the sound as intended by the engineers is already present in the recording. Adding more from the room you listen in can only degrade the sound. Especially if the listening room is small and adds a "small room" sound.

--Ethan

I would agree, that a high end jazz, blues, or similar recording at a live music venue includes room ambiance. But, few studio recordings are mic-ed for ambiance. The recording engineer MAY have added reverb or other effects to enhance the sound to match a larger room, but natural room reflections sound best to me. They should be tamed, but not removed completely.

Take a look at the walls, and rugs, at Meyer's Pearson Theater in SF. Maybe the best architecturally designed theater. There is a combination of wood and acoustically absorbing material on the walls. x+y = a thru z.

http://www.meyersound.com/pdf/brochures/pearson_brochure_a.pdf

My front speakers are 9' high (above my projector screen). The L/R speakers are also mounted horizontally. All 3 speakers are angled directly toward the seating area (they're mounted to an angled wall that takes the ceiling height from 8' high to 10' high). The room is used exclusively for HT (no music). The sound seems to come directly from the screen.
I've actually had guests over that have asked if I had inwall speakers behind the screen (the speakers are black and the whole front wall is black, so they're not very noticeable up there).

If you look close, you can see their shadow on the screen in this pic (I don't use the overhead cans when watching a movie, so those shadows aren't usually there).

http://www.kellystewart.net/albums/albun05/front.jpg

And here's a construction shot with all the lights on where you can actually see them.

http://www.kellystewart.net/albums/album63/screen_wall.jpg

They work very well there.

The bottom line is that if you are going to be the only person sitting in your room then having the surrounds and fronts at ear level would be best. Since your room will probably have more than one person in it watching movies you'll be better off having the surrounds above ear level but pointed down towards the listening area.

This thread has turned into an argument of semantics. No feature film mixing stage I have ever been on has surrounds that are at ear level.

Take a look at the walls, and rugs, at Meyer's Pearson Theater in SF. Maybe the best architecturally designed theater.

Uh, well, okay. But who has a home theater like that? :confused:

--Ethan

I agree with MLK on the fact that the room should be tamed some but not "Dead". I do believe that even though one's home theatre may not be exactly like the link the concept and ideas can be reproduced within ones home if they so choose. I also have to agree that if there are more than one person watching in a room that they speakers should be raised above and angled down. When was the last time you attended a concert of any type that was ampliphied that had all the speakers at ear level of the audience? I can't think of any. MOst have actually been raised above the audience and then aimed gradually downwards to the "floor" seats. Have to imagine they kinda know what they are doing, at least I would hope so if they are doing it for a living.

having proper acoustical treatments at the proper reflection points is NOT what defines a "dead" room. Those are required for proper in room response and proper control of response decay. "Dead" rooms are the ones with treatments everywhere and very little reflection exists.

Someone can "like" none treated rooms but its because they have limited experience with properly treated rooms and they have zero knowledge about in room measurements. Sometimes its a good thing to have ignorance about the science behind audio because once you learn about the science there are SOOOOOO many things you will scratch your head about and you will wonder what the heck have you been thinking for all these years.




You are not alone, BOSE owners love their speakers and have never seen a speaker measurement ;)

I don't think anyone said that a room shouldn't be treated to aid in sound reproduction. I believe someone stated that they like a more "dead" room. I would have to agree that room treatments can make a large impact on sound reproduction so long as it isn't "dead". My room has yet to be treated as I have much bigger fish to fry but at higher volume you can tell that is needs some. I have heard rooms with little treatment that sound much better than before they were treated. One day I will have the time to devote to taking care of mine but the house calls for much bigger repiars than room treatments.

Love how everyonepicks on BOSE owners. It's not their fault they can't hear well!!

As soon as the word "trade-off" is introduced, then it becomes a matter of opinion rather than science. I prefer all speakers at ear level for the reasons I stated, but if you do not that's okay with me. Putting the surround speakers at ear level is also a tradeoff--it reduces the size of the sweet spot, causing off-center listeners to have a less enjoyable experience. It's a question of which tradeoff one wants--the one that favors a single viewer, or the one that favors a group.

Putting the surround speakers at ear level is also a tradeoff--it reduces the size of the sweet spot, causing off-center listeners to have a less enjoyable experience.

My HT is mostly for my wife and I, and sometimes two more people visiting. I've never noticed any trade-off, though we also have a second row behind the main large couch, and that seating is a step down in quality. But only because my side-wall RFZ panels aren't large enough to cover the second row. But in the front row the sound is amazing. Not just my admittedly biased opinion, but everyone who visits including my friends, most of whom are professional musicians and/or pro recording engineers. They all bring their new movies and concert DVDs to my house to watch and listen.

Whatever, to each his own. I had my say, and I'm not so arrogant as to think my way is the only way. I'm almost that arrogant, but not quite. :D

--Ethan

My HT is mostly for my wife and I, and sometimes two more people visiting. I've never noticed any trade-off, though we also have a second row behind the main large couch, and that seating is a step down in quality. But only because my side-wall RFZ panels aren't large enough to cover the second row. But in the front row the sound is amazing. Not just my admittedly biased opinion, but everyone who visits including my friends, most of whom are professional musicians and/or pro recording engineers. They all bring their new movies and concert DVDs to my house to watch and listen.
The fact that tradeoffs exist in a system do not necessarily mean that the results cannot be amazing (no system is without tradeoffs on some level). The subjective experience you report simply proves that there's more than one path to nirvana, and that's all I am trying to establish. It's not just a choice between right and wrong, science vs opinion. It's about how it sounds.
Whatever, to each his own. I had my say, and I'm not so arrogant as to think my way is the only way. I'm almost that arrogant, but not quite.
Glad to see this shift to a broader perspective. :)

It's about how it sounds.

Yes, but what do you say to someone who prefers the sound of a 30 watt toob power amp with 30 gauge speaker wire? :D

BTW, there really are people who prefer that. And they'll argue to the death that they're right. :eek:

--Ethan