AVS Forum banner

Exploltation of Width Speakers AKA Wides

26K views 229 replies 36 participants last post by  Chirosamsung 
#1 · (Edited)
Exploitation of Width Speakers AKA Wides

For Wides lovers, or people wondering what the fuzz is about ;)

This thread is to exchange ideas/best practices on existing/suggested methodologies for the exploitation of wides (B-chain) in situation where:
1) the content does not natively support wides, like stereo, 5.1/7.1 legacy, DSU and Auro3D/AuroMatic; and
2) the number of active channels has already reached the maximum for decoding (11 main channels for Atmos and DTS:X on most DSP chip based processors)

Not to be confused with the thread started by @CINERAMAX which is about Atmos soundtracks exploiting Wides (A-chain): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...al-atmos-width-channel-exploiting-thread.html


I tried to start a discussion on this subject on the Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) forum (> Official Atmos Width Channel Exploiting Thread), but realized that its relevance is much broader than that.
  • Allthough virtually all manufacturers of consumer gear have dropped Wides on their AVRs/processors the last couple of years, rumor goes they will be re-introduced on the flagship D&M 2018 models expected coming spring.
  • On top of that, a bit more expensive (but still below the 20,000 mark) processors are being introduced which already allow more simultaneously active channels (including Wides), either through native processing (decoding) or added afterwards by some kind of post-processing (arraying, mixing).
  • And last but not least, this subject also includes the solutions of some hard-core enthusiast who are employing multiple AVR/processor set-ups to escape from the limitations of the current consumer hardware.
Below are the posts I was referring to, and merely intended to stir up the discussion.

With all the existing, new or promised 13-16 (or more) channel capable DSP based receivers/processors (DataSat, Acurus, StormAudio, Lyngdorf, Emotiva, Theta), all allowing some form of post-processing to get a higher number of active channels than current decoding limits permit, why does NOT ONE of them allow center extraction between fronts and surrounds to create permanent wides.... There MUST be a VERY PERTINENT reason...:confused:
Wides are supported by ATMOS and DTS:X.

With DTS:X, the wide creation appears to rely entirely on a front-surround center extraction process, the same way the Neural-X up-mixer creates wides. So for DTS:X and Neural:X you will get very similar results if you create wides AFTER the decoding, by a separate post-processing center extraction process. In this way you can have DTS:X (and Neural:X) on a 7.1.4+wides speaker configuration, and get beyond the 11 channel max limit for DTS:X/Neural:X. Conclusion: Excellent! :)


With ATMOS it's a bit different. Here the wides get their content from
  • 1) object sounds panned between fronts and surrounds, or
  • 2) object sounds at wides position with a 'snap to nearest speaker' tag.
Only in 2nd case, replacing ATMOS decoding by a post-processing front-surround center extraction will not work, as the 'wide' information will remain in the fronts speaker (your explanation, if I understand correctly). In the 1st case however, in the absence of declared wides, the object sound will be will divided between front and surround, and post processing centre extraction will actually work quite good. In fact, I bet you will not hear any difference with real ATMOS decoding. The other difference with real ATMOS decoding is that in addition to panned object sounds, also equal bed channel info between front and surround will be extracted and send to the wides. This effect could actually IMPROVE the immersive field, it will at least make the wides much more active also when there are no objects passing. Conclusion: Pretty good, and worth having this option to play with. :)

But here comes the best part: For all legacy content that relies on up-mixing to achieve a more immersive sound field, post-processing center extraction will give you back the wides that DSU 'forgot'. And last but not least, it allows you to add wides to Auro3D and Auromatic. Conclusion: Spectacular! :)

So I ask again, why do we not see this included as an optional post-processing feature on mentioned machines? It is beyond me...
looking ahead, with competition closing in on each other, this could IMO be a very welcomed USP.

Edit 1: I am specifically targeting Lyngdorf with this suggestion, as they already implemented some post-processing for additional speaker feeds (e.g. wides) that goes beyond simple arraying feeds to multiple speakers. My assumption (which may be false?) is that it should be relatively easy to in the digital domain apply center extraction on two adjacent speaker feeds, instead of just mixing these two feeds to create this additional one right in-between ...

Edit 2: Or maybe it are the license agreements with the immersive codec providers (Dolby, DTS, AurouTechnologies) that forbid any advanced post-processing to their decoded feeds. So only level, delay, and eq modifications together with channel copying or some simple mixing could be allowed. That would be a pertinent reason...
Have fun! :smile:
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
Positioning of wides

From ISE-2017 presentation by Arnaud Laborie, Trinnov

Part 2: Unified 3D speaker layouts for multiple listeners
Recommendations for front-wide speakers – multiple listening positions
• Why front wide speaker placement in high end home theater.
o Fill the hole between screen speakers and surround speakers...
o ... regardless of the screen and the listening area​
• Human localization is not very good for front-side directions
o How to fill the hole?​
• One simple method.
• The median angle is preferred over the bisector angle
Applying this method to the speaker 9.2 lay-out diagram from the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines puts the wides at a more narrow position (about 50 degrees azimuth):

Line Diagram Parallel Technology
 

Attachments

#4 · (Edited)
From ISE-2017 presentation by Arnaud Laborie, Trinnov



Applying this method to the speaker 9.2 lay-out diagram from the Dolby Atmos Home Theater Installation Guidelines puts the wides at a more narrow position (about 50 degrees azimuth):

View attachment 2300204
That’s actually what I do with my wides, having them at about 50 degrees, with the Atmos Narrow configuration for my native Atmos conent. I will say this works well with DSU, but particularly Neural:X and Auromatic, in combination with copying the L/R mains to these speakers at a much reduced level, and adding small delay as works best in your room.

If you have the right tools - Trinnov, Datasat, maybe the Storm Audio processor, MiniDSP, or a Q-Sys - you can do the same with a second pair of side surrounds at maybe 70-75 degrees (a/k/a “Side Surround 1” on the 24.1.10 Atmos layout), to be similarly copied to match with true side surrounds at 100-110. I find that in my room, that second pair of side surrounds in front of the single row of three seats is more noticeable than the wides, though, with the upmixers, while avoiding occlusion interference with listeners’ heads. As always, IMO/YMMV.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Copying L/R fronts to the Wides

Probably the simplest way of using Wides with formats (and up-mixers) that do not use them, is to copy the front speaker on the same side, and add a delay of 3-5 ms. In that way the Wides mimic the beneficial lateral reflections that are know to increase envelopment, but it allows more control (SPL, delay, eq'ing). An added benefit is that the fronts can be further toed in (e.g. 45 degrees) to allow cross-firing (time-intensity trading) without losing L/R front envelopment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikela
#12 ·
Probably the simplest way of using Wides with formats (and up-mixers) that do not use them, is to copy the front speaker on the same side, and add a delay of 3-5 ms. In that way the Wides mimic the beneficial lateral reflections that are know to increase envelopment, but it allows more control (SPL, delay, eq'ing). An added benefit is that the fronts can be further toed in (e.g. 45 degrees) to allow cross-firing (time-intensity trading) without losing L/R front envelopment.
And here you go giving me ideas again ;)

In my setup i have two unused sets of front outputs, that i can reroute to my «pure wide» speakers and test this method when using DSU.
I can even calibrate that AVR using my wides as fronts, so they get calibrated spesially for that use.

I have to think about this....
 
#31 ·
I have my fronts at 30 degrees, wides at 60 degrees, sides at 100 degrees and rears at 142.5 degrees.

Any content that isn't Atmos/DTS:X gets the Neural:X treatment and the entire lot works great.
 
#46 ·
I have my fronts at 30 degrees, wides at 60 degrees, sides at 100 degrees and rears at 142.5 degrees. Any content that isn't Atmos/DTS:X gets the Neural:X treatment and the entire lot works great.
Did you ever try disabling the rears to experience what the Atmos renderer does to the wides? Atmos 5.x.x+wides is unique in that it's the only configuration which features arrayed surrounds (side surround bed channel mixed into the wides).
 
#41 ·
So in the wake of no receivers featuring wides currently aside from the high end D&M and even pricier units, I've got a non traditional wide idea, and I'm wondering if anyone has tried it or something similar. Instead of matrixing the front and side surround speakers (requiring two additional AVRs), output the FR/FL pre outs to a second receiver, and use PLII or surround upmixer of choice to create the wides as if they're surrounds (2.0 To 4.0 upmix), and output both the fronts and newly created wides from the second AVR. The other surround speakers would obviously just get straight output from the original AVR. To my mind this is a partially inverted PLIIX. I'd like to try it sometime, though it would be after Thanksgiving or the New Year when work and life slow down and require some major swaps to my input chain.
 
#42 ·
I've got a non traditional wide idea, and I'm wondering if anyone has tried it or something similar. Instead of matrixing the front and side surround speakers (requiring two additional AVRs), output the FR/FL pre outs to a second receiver, and use PLII or surround upmixer of choice to create the wides as if they're surrounds (2.0 To 4.0 upmix), and output both the fronts and newly created wides from the second AVR.
I had thought about that configuration, but rejected it. I.e., it seemed to me that whatever content you could generate in that manner would be more 'side' than 'wide'. So all you'd be doing is shifting side content into a wide location.

However, I haven't tried it either, and I'd agree it would be worth taking a look at. Impressions can be wrong, and sometimes we don't really know until we actually try something. Perhaps the side content generated in that manner is actually more 'wide' than 'side' to begin with, and the results would be better than expected. :)
 
#56 · (Edited)
cinematic 'precedence speakers' versus Wides at home

I presume that the object sounds the re-recording mixer puts in the cinematic 'precedence' speakers (just outside the borders of the screen), will in our home theaters end up in the wides (at the median angle of the 'buffer zone' segment). In the diagram below (from Dolby Atmos specifications Issue 3) I have tried to graphically display their positional relation:

Line Text Parallel Diagram Slope


Edit:
  • Note that the calculated position of the wides in this diagram is exactly at the ipsi-lateral reflection point of the L/R fronts, which in our home theaters is often used to widen the front soundstage in order to achieve better envelopment. This supports the suggestion that wides - in addition to reproducing object sounds - can also be used to mimic side wall reflections in a controllable way.
  • Projecting a 5.x.x+wides lay-out onto this diagram puts the single Surround speaker to the S2 position, and the Wides to the S1 position. This might explain why the Atmos decoder with this config is sending side surround bed channel info to the Wides: they are no longer inside the 'buffer zone'...
 
#79 ·
I presume that the object sounds the re-recording mixer puts in the cinematic 'precedence' speakers (just outside the borders of the screen), will in our home theaters end up in the wides (at the median angle of the 'buffer zone' segment). In the diagram below (from Dolby Atmos specifications Issue 3) I have tried to graphically display their positional relation:

That's a good one (base image the same as what I previously posted), nicely augmented. And with named positions to help with identification. :cool:


Note that the calculated position of the wides in this diagram is exactly at the ipsi-lateral reflection point of the L/R fronts, which in our home theaters is often used to widen the front soundstage in order to achieve better envelopment. This supports the suggestion that wides - in addition to reproducing object sounds - can also be used to mimic side wall reflections in a controllable way.
One thing I thought about, as I was looking at that diagram, is just how lonely a single side-surround is (at home). With most people placing that at the recommended 100-110d (S' or S2), the fronts sure look a long ways off. :) Thus not hard to understand why Sanjay would express a preference for wides at S1. OTOH, if someone were to take the alternate approach, suggested by Toole, of moving the side-surround slightly ahead to the S position (and pulling the SB's out wider to compensate), then putting the wides out further into the buffer zone you've drawn might be more viable. Even more so if the side and back surrounds were bipoles, with a large dispersion pattern.
 
#77 ·
The two 'Additional Surround Speakers' on the side walls (yellow zone in diagram below, first one is 'object only' precedence speaker), is that object only or bed channel too?
Sanjay can probably answer definitively, but my guess would be object-only.

Atmos didn't add any bed-channels, from my understanding. All the new speakers/positions are object-based.
 
#104 ·
Pointing speakers at one another doesn't provide a more diffuse audio. It's causing the audio to reflect off the walls which creates a more diffuse sound. Reflections do happen if the speakers are pointing at reflective wall surraces, though. Having them not toed in, means tha you're seated off-axis, which prevents you from hearing the highest frequencies. The tweeter's outputs tend to be more or less "beamed" depending on the design of the speakers. Also, if you run a roomEQ calibration with the microphone off-axis relative to the speakers, it won't be able to hear those high frequencies very well, either. As a result, it'll boost them to compensate. This might result in the audio seeming to be overly shrill.
 
#120 ·
I have a deep room so I feel surrounds do not fill so good the whole volume (they are gathered on the back).

I'm planning two options.
First: Take the current side surround speakers and duplicate them (two to four).
Second: Let the current two side surrounds as they are, then add the front wide channel as a new side surround with two more speakers (closer to the main ones).
In both cases the four surround speakers will be the same.

The question is to know if the Front Wide sound approaching is more on the surround side or maybe the sound is more based on the main speakers processing?
Witch of the two options would be better in order to get a more realistic front-to-back sound panning?
 
#121 · (Edited)
Surprising improvement from exchanging Back speakers for Wides

After having read in the Lyngdorf MP-50 thread that many users tried front wide speakers and said they'd not do without them, and having liked them several years back when I used Audyssey DSX, I decided to reconfigure the base layer of my AV7702 7.2.4 setup from Surrounds + Surround Backs to Front Wides + Surrounds; the Front Wide signals are generated by native Atmos soundtracks or DTS Neural:X upmixing.

I moved the formerly Surround speakers forward a few feet from just slightly ahead of MLP to roughly the recommended +/- 60 deg (0 deg being straight ahead).

I left the formerly Back Surround speakers on the back wall of my long room at about +/-160 deg and added a paralleled pair on the sides at about +/-120 deg to fill the angular gap, give a better experience for the second row, and improve spaciousness.

I was expecting, and got, an improved front soundstage in the form of a bigger and more realistic soundfield.

But I was surprised by the subjective effects.

My girlfriend, who isn't at all particular or interested in sound, said "Are the speakers on?" even though the system was obviously playing (I guess she was referring to the surrounds, but still).

That's because there was a cohesive soundfield w/o the individual speakers calling attention to themselves.

Not that they did that noticeably before; my base layer surround speakers are all Mirage OMD-5's, which are known for their disappearing act, and indeed they were a big improvement in that regard over the coax's that they replaced, but this last change was just as big of an improvement.

Here's what surprised me:

The sound is mellower; before I would limit the volume because it just sounded too loud and guests would ask me to turn it down, even though the SPL wasn't that high. My front speakers have 12" woofers and compression drivers so are nowhere near stressed.

Now I can turn it up higher and that doesn't happen.

You'd think that might somehow be related to less highs, but I don't believe that to be the case, because it actually sounds clearer with notably improved dialog intelligibility, and sound objects are more distinct from each other.

I think at least some of the mellowness may be because the front soundstage has more ambience, which I find makes higher SPL more tolerable.

I have no idea why the clarity is better.

Whatever is going on, I suggest that anyone who has this capability give it a try.

Oh, forgot to mention that I was somewhat reluctant to give up Back Surrounds, but the truth is the only time they ever seemed to be worthwhile was when I had Logic 7 processing.

With the new configuration I don't notice a diminished rear soundfield, which isn't surprising, since a hard rear signal should will appear in the Surround channels, and the speakers receiving this signal are in the same physical location.

Actually you could argue that front/rear panning should be very similar to before.

Previously material upmixed from 5 to 7 ch would send hard Surround info to the rears and interpolate the side surround signal from the Fronts and Backs, and now hard Surround info goes to the back speakers and the Wides are interpolated from the fronts and Surrounds.

Anyone else have a similar experience and/or explanations for it?
 
#124 ·
Is Atmos with Front Wides that good

I keep reading about how users that have tried Front Wides with Atmos can never do without.

Is overall experience that 7.1.4 using front wides as opposed to rear back really that much better ?

I do not yet own an Atmos capable receiver, and I am one of the unlucky ones that have not had a chance to get a receiver that supports the front wides for Atmos in the few years back when they were available, so right now I either have to play the roll of dice of buying one of craigslist or getting a refurbished (warranties in Canada are I believe worse for refurbished than they are in US), or just get one a brand new ones (e.g x4400) that do not support front wides.

With a 7.1.4 at home, I would be placing my side speakers somewhat in front anyway (can't put them right at the side due to room layout limitations).

Would I setup like where the sides are placed somewhat in the front still sound nowhere as good as if I have had proper front wides processing ?

Granted, I think there is a lot of positive experience with just going 5.1.4, but if I am already investing this much, I want to know how much would I miss for not being able to have proper front wides support, and whether that might mean I should wait until later this year in hopes I will have better options for receivers within budget that may support front wides again.

Something I noticed is that in the Dolby Atmos HT Installation guidelines, they now (again?) have 9.1.4 examples, where when I checked this a couple of months ago I don't think they had any examples of front wides (though I may be wrong), so just based on this I wonder if receiver support for front wides is coming back, and if I should hold off until later this year.
 
#126 ·
I keep reading about how users that have tried Front Wides with Atmos can never do without.

Is overall experience that 7.1.4 using front wides as opposed to rear back really that much better ?
Is it a "must have"? No. Will it improve your front sound stage experience? Yes, definitely.

As we hear better what is in front of us as opposed to what is behind us .... for me, Front Wide provide a much better experience than Surround Back speakers.
 
#125 ·
Somehow I missed this thread until now, nor did I realize my thread had been moved here (post #121 ).

I need to temper my enthusiasm a bit; the first disc I watched was Moana (7.1, upmixed).

I'm still happy with the change after further listening, but nothing has sounded near that good.
 
#130 · (Edited)
I just read (and re-read...and re-read) the posts in this thread after being directed here by others. What a wonderful forum AVS is- thank you all for your insights and knowledge!

So for expanding into the wides while maintaining 4 or 6 overheads, there are a few options below the $10k pricepoint: (1) the denon 8500 or marantz 8805 (limited to 4 overheads, wides available right now only in native atmos material), (2) a multi-avr setup (see the Beyond 7.1.4 thread), and (3) use of mixers. For a minute I would like to focus on (3).

As I understand it, simple outboard mixers could be used to duplicate the L and R channels to L and R wide speakers, with -3 or -6 dB and/or time delayed signals. This mimics reflections of the L and R speakers, thus making the front soundstage sound "wider" in most setups.

The other potential wides setup under option (3) is Mikael's "holy grail" of center extraction from the fronts and side surrounds on either side. My question is, is that possible with an outboard mixer or dsp of some sort (keeping it in category 3), without resorting to another AVR (which would push it into category 2)? Maybe I missed it if someone has tried this and explained how it worked. Or is such an extraction not really possible without an AVR?
 
#133 ·
So for expanding into the wides while maintaining 4 or 6 overheads, there are a few options below the $10k pricepoint: (1) the denon 8500 or marantz 8805 (limited to 4 overheads, wides available right now only in native atmos material), (2) a multi-avr setup (see the Beyond 7.1.4 thread), and (3) use of mixers. For a minute I would like to focus on (3).

Also the Lyngdorf MP-50, 16 ch.
 
#131 ·
^^^ No experience with mixers, so can’t help you there.
 
#136 ·
Excellent experience with wides

I was running 7.1 with rear surrounds and wanted to give front wides a try. I did not have high expectations, as I had tried front heights in the past but didn't feel they added much at all. To try wides, I had to use the two amplifier channels that were powering my rear surrounds. The wides are placed at 60 degrees from center. I have tried both Audyssey DSX and DTS:X.

In short, wow!! The wides really add more than the rear surrounds do. So far I prefer the DTS:X processing over the Audyssey processing, but this could be sighted bias as I am not a fan of Audyssey in general. I will add the rear surrounds back when I have more channels of amplification, but wides are here to stay.
 
#138 ·
If you don't have overheads, the soundtrack won't be decoded as Atmos, but rather as just 7.1 with the overhead sounds included in the ear-level channels. The A/V industry uses 7.1 to indicate 5.1+SB (Surround Back). If instead you have a 5.1 + Front Wides speaker system and do not engage the upmixer DTS Neural:X then the Front Wides will be silent. The Dolby Surround upmixer never uses Front Wides.

Note, however, that having the side speakers somewhat to the front of the seating is reasonable. That is, positioning the speakers as if they were 5.1 +FW but designating them as 5.1+SB can produce an enjoyable soundfield. In other words you can designate as Surround the speakers that would have been designated Front Wide and the ones that would have been designated Surround as Surround Back.
 
#152 ·
I have to say Top Gun has pretty good use of front wides (matrixed ones anyway). Sounds were well off to the left/right of the screen and in-between the surrounds just in in the first 5 minutes (during the opening credits).
 
#161 ·
It's hard to tell in my room since it's fairly narrow (matrixed wides using active mixers + Yamaha amp with speaker distance delay). I guess that's "not really worth it" unless you have the extra speakers already (I did). And short of comparing back and forth with and without, it's hard to tell if it's widening the soundstage or not, especially from the MLP. I can verify the sounds pass through the speaker on panning, etc., but even when I had TRUE wides running (Marantz 7010) with the Atmos demos I couldn't tell much if any difference (save the Atmos speaker tests where they kicked on by themselves). I think that's because in a narrow room the out of phase information from the main speakers tends to image in more or less the same place as the wides do sitting on the "circle".

With a much wider room, they would make a bigger difference, IMO. It's like having top middle in a short room. It's probably not going to add much to just front/rear heights/tops since it'll phantom in-between just fine. In a longer room, it can't phantom across a certain distance and the top middles make all the difference in the world. I imagine it's the same for front wides in a wider room for either giving a wider image or phantom imaging better between front and side surrounds. It certainly didn't hurt to add them.... Top Middle with Pro Logic extraction sounds pretty much like true discrete does, though.

The problem with fully extracted front wides in general with Atmos is that the "snap to" function limits what they can do if it's used since it moves the objects to the front speakers instead. It probably works much better with Neural X and soundtracks that don't use the snap to function.
 
#167 ·
Fair enough; I missed your emphasis on the difference in sound due to speaker distance and was knee-jerk reacting because so many people have posted that that their rooms are too small for wides.

That said I have a relatively long and narrow room so my wides are on the side walls at half the distance of the fronts (7' vs. 14').

I get a worthwhile improvement in soundstage width and general expansiveness, well worth giving up the back surrounds for.
 
#168 ·
Here's a link to some photos of my setup. It's not quite accurate any longer since the AVR was changed and some room changes (new chairs, movie posters, etc.), but close enough for speaker locations. The front wides are about halfway in-between the the mains and the side surrounds which are at about 105 degrees or so (for some semblance of rear info with Auro-3D).

My 7010 is currently non-functional (speaker terminal short or something) (I've added a 7012 instead), but when it was working I tried true front wides instead of rears or with just two overheads. The problem was the active mixer setup sounded almost identical to me with all the test trailers I had and some movie snips (i.e. still had wides, but active matrix instead which allows me to use all 4 overheads plus rear bed speakers and then extract top middle from the heights). If I get the 7010 fixed, I could connect it to get true wides added to the current setup (passthrough the HDMI and remote connections and move front wides to the 7010). It's possible there is some material that would sound much better with true wides, but it's hard to say without a direct comparison either way.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...r-set-up-immersive-audio-54.html#post56799092
 
#169 ·
Not sure if it would make a difference, but my side surrounds are at about 130 deg.

Also, my wides (and all other surrounds) are Mirage Omnipolars, which are harder to localize than conventional speakers, though I also liked wides when I had all coaxials.

The Mirages gave a much bigger improvement in spaciousness than reconfiguring for wides.
 
#170 ·
Not sure if it would make a difference, but my side surrounds are at about 130 deg.

Also, my wides (and all other surrounds) are Mirage Omnipolars, which are harder to localize than conventional speakers, though I also liked wides when I had all coaxials.
I've got more new furniture (chairs) coming in about 6-8 weeks to replace the green couch (two rockers and probably one more leather lift recliner since it's narrow enough to fit three in the front row with two lifts there and I'll put one rocker/recliner in the front and one on the right or back middle; I have cushy dining set chair I can bring in to put beside the back row chair in front of the door there if needed to then seat 7 people (3/2/2). I'll be able to move the chairs to change the relative angle of the side surrounds (backward toward 90 and forward toward 130). It only takes a half foot either way, really.

My lower and upper sides are bipolars (plays cleanly to front/back of room across multiple rows). I'd like to get the Imagine S to put on the left/right walls instead like the upper S50, but the Imagine S can be set to only play one direction (or use two sources, one for each direction) as well as dipolar or bipolar with both. Given the wide location, I'm thinking firing toward the back only wouldn't be a bad idea. I could actually attach the "surround" output from the top middle heights Dolby Processors to the other side to play towards the front of the room and see if that gives it some strange atmospheric ambience or something as well (they're there to play with with 25W power already so why not if I get the speakers? Might as well have some fun with it. If I went with tiles instead of drapes, I can just pull one or two to mount the wall speakers (drapes would be problematic if it blocked the wall location). Decisions decisions....

(I've added the link to my current setup in my signature now on the "THEATER" word so I can just update the specs and photos as things change....) I've added two new photos of the 2nd/3rd row chairs and posters I have so far.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top