Originally Posted by CINERAMAX
I am 100% on to something when I tell you that a 1. mini implementation of 24-32 channel atmos will sound incredible when done with high quality playback kit as opposed to home audiophile speakers that become more and more 2. compressed sounding as they age due to overdriving, like dynaudio confidences in prometheus and helene. Or horn speakers which requires copious amounts of high end front end to sound good (ocean way).
1. To me speakers crowding
like rabbits is reminiscent of 1960's Phil Spector's wall of sound "technology" and is never what Dolby/DTS/Auro recommends. The room size
dictates speaker placement, number of speakers, and speaker output level.
While I agree with a more commercial approach if we are talking about a true mega theater with several rows of seats and huge screen, on a smaller scale theater typically seen in the Ultra forum, IMO it's a mis-application and results in smearing of imaging and lack of clarity, at the least. For example, additional screen speakers are recommended by Dolby for screen that is 40 plus wide, for smooth panning and filling up acoustic void across a huge screen, why stuff them into this tiny theater?
Besides the room size, the very audio mix is different
, no? At home we are stuck with a Blu-ray and the audio mix it comes with, namely 7.1 channels, NOT the surround mix of the commercial theater. Why should we set up a home with a commercial theater speaker layout, when the audio mix is not designed for a commercial theater layout?
The smaller room size also dictates that you do not need commercial speakers
to achieve adequate loudness. I, and very likely many posters here, have never needed to max out the volume of the system because of the smaller room size of typical home theaters. Lastly, noise induced hearing loss at 85 db long exposure is a concern no? I worry for the people in your "mega" home theaters :-).
2. Where does this come from? I would not expect this much mis-information from a professional speaker dealer.