or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DSX 11.2 CIH theater build

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
Hello all...

Love and respect the folks on this site, have helped me so much in pre build prep. I am starting my DSX 11.2 CIH theater build with a 30k budget and wanted to gauge if there was any interest in me keeping a progress log and if folks would be open to giving some guidance as I have more money than sense but have a love of theater and music and saved my pennies and worked my butt off to get here. Any suggestions for doing a good journal would be appreciated as well.

If no one cares, I just don't want to put in the effort to post as I don't do any social network stuff normally but some of u guys really know your stuff and I could use the support.

T
post #2 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasswaiting View Post

Hello all...

Love and respect the folks on this site, have helped me so much in pre build prep. I am starting my DSX 11.2 CIH theater build with a 30k budget and wanted to gauge if there was any interest in me keeping a progress log and if folks would be open to giving some guidance as I have more money than sense but have a love of theater and music and saved my pennies and worked my butt off to get here. Any suggestions for doing a good journal would be appreciated as well.

If no one cares, I just don't want to put in the effort to post as I don't do any social network stuff normally but some of u guys really know your stuff and I could use the support.

T

If you have $30k budget, but "more money than sense", then I suggest getting some Pro theater plans, then following them with input from people here.

Learning while doing is what many of us do here, but having a good foundation to work from ensures you a successful result.
post #3 of 42
Thread Starter 
Thank you for the comment. I have read everything I can get my hands on, master handbook of acoustics (recommended here) etc. Attached is my basic room schematic, three walls are concrete, one drywall. Dimensions are 8hx18wx24l. The red dot is a post I am moving out of the way, already adjusted the structural by sandwiching some plywood to span the length up to code.

Thanks again for comments, really appreciate guys

post #4 of 42
I am interested so posr away
post #5 of 42
Looking forward to the build too. smile.gif
post #6 of 42
you've had a 100 views in less than 24 hours, we can get that number up if you post pictures of hot babes.
post #7 of 42
Thread Starter 
Well ordered up the 11.2 speakers and amps today, so I have about a month to finish this build so its ready when they get here. After looking at speakers and amps at all levels, I settled on sonus Faber Veneres (3-3.0 floorstanders for LCR, 4-2.0 bookshelfs for wides and sides, 4-1.5 bookshelfs for heights and rears), rogue audio atlas Magnum tube amp for L&R and 2-5150 butler 5 channel tube hybrid amps for the rest. The Fabers loved the tubes, not my fault! I'm still searching for the right sealed subs. There went 2/3 of my remaining budget fast! But doing good as I only have minor construction and already have the acoustic treatments and screen covered.

?'s
1)Can anyone provide guidance on whether I should put all 3 floorstanders behind the 12' wide screen (seating area 16ft back) or just the center and bring the L&R out farther for better staging, the angle recommendations put me right on the edge of the screen? (Thank u all for teaching me that horizontal center channel speakers are a compromise, I see the light now)

2)Also how far out is the minimum I can build the false front wall with front ported fabers?Chris at screen excellence said the Center Stage XD AT screen only needs a couple inches. I would like as tight as possible without killing the beautiful sound.

3) Last I was going to use all absorption on the front wall and first reflections with 2" of auralex foam over 2" of 703 fiberglass with 4" of air gap in modular 2x4 panels and large auralex/703 bass traps in the corner and use diffusion on back wall and rear sides as needed. Any one have comments here, wondering if I should use some diffusion on the front wall? (Auralex T-Fusors/1" of 703 in the cavity)

Will post picks of the room and hot chicks as this build progresses and to reward good comments. Will do a few starting pics tomorrow. Thx all
post #8 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasswaiting View Post

Can anyone provide guidance on whether I should put all 3 floorstanders behind the 12' wide screen (seating area 16ft back) or just the center and bring the L&R out farther for better staging, the angle recommendations put me right on the edge of the screen?
I would put the L&R speakers 32" from the side walls (to get smoother frequency response). IF you get a couple of subs, place them 4' in from the side walls (same reason). Good choice on seating location (1/3 of room length).
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasswaiting View Post

I was going to use all absorption on the front wall and first reflections with 2" of auralex foam over 2" of 703 fiberglass with 4" of air gap in modular 2x4 panels and large auralex/703 bass traps in the corner and use diffusion on back wall and rear sides as needed. Any one have comments here, wondering if I should use some diffusion on the front wall?
I would stick with all absorbtion on the front wall so that no reflected energy interferes with the imaging in the front soundstage.
post #9 of 42
Thread Starter 
Ok so tomorrow I am building a 2x4 stud wall 2ft on center to line the front concrete wall. This will allow 2" of Auralex foam, 2" of 703 and ~1.5" of air gap. I am going to use Velcro on the back of the Auralex and just tuck the 703 in the bays.

I am also running 4-20 amp circuits for all the gear as the butlers need 15 amp a piece. Just got a thank you letter from my PG&E rep for my vastly increase electrical bill. She came out and read the meter today and I took a photo. Pleasant, skilled woman.
post #10 of 42
He said HOT babes, not artificial humans. tongue.gif But seriously anything that says 11.2 will be interesting.
post #11 of 42
Thread Starter 
Attached are some starting pics, work is in full swing. I just took some panorama shots in the basement. Framing and electrical going on over the next several days: 12 recessed lights, dimmers that work from a universal infrared remote, 4 20 amp outlets and dedicated breakers for the butlers and rogue tubes. I ordered the 2" 703 for the front wall, which will be 2" of auralex, 2" of 703 and 2" of air gap over the whole wall, that should make my 3 matching Faber Venere 3.0s sound clean.

Also, Faber wouldn't sell me 3, so I had to buy 4. I am going to list the fourth for sale on this forum if anyone is interested.

[IMG][IMG][IMG]
post #12 of 42
Thread Starter 


post #13 of 42
Thread Starter 
Also my acoustic designer stopped by but she's a bit out there! She got a little salty sweet over the 11 fabers and full tube setup one the way though. The wife did not like her one bit, she looks harmless enough to me;/
post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasswaiting View Post

Well ordered up the 11.2 speakers and amps today, so I have about a month to finish this build so its ready when they get here. After looking at speakers and amps at all levels, I settled on sonus Faber Veneres (3-3.0 floorstanders for LCR, 4-2.0 bookshelfs for wides and sides, 4-1.5 bookshelfs for heights and rears), rogue audio atlas Magnum tube amp for L&R and 2-5150 butler 5 channel tube hybrid amps for the rest. The Fabers loved the tubes, not my fault! I'm still searching for the right sealed subs. There went 2/3 of my remaining budget fast! But doing good as I only have minor construction and already have the acoustic treatments and screen covered.

?'s
1)Can anyone provide guidance on whether I should put all 3 floorstanders behind the 12' wide screen (seating area 16ft back) or just the center and bring the L&R out farther for better staging, the angle recommendations put me right on the edge of the screen? (Thank u all for teaching me that horizontal center channel speakers are a compromise, I see the light now)

2)Also how far out is the minimum I can build the false front wall with front ported fabers?Chris at screen excellence said the Center Stage XD AT screen only needs a couple inches. I would like as tight as possible without killing the beautiful sound.

3) Last I was going to use all absorption on the front wall and first reflections with 2" of auralex foam over 2" of 703 fiberglass with 4" of air gap in modular 2x4 panels and large auralex/703 bass traps in the corner and use diffusion on back wall and rear sides as needed. Any one have comments here, wondering if I should use some diffusion on the front wall? (Auralex T-Fusors/1" of 703 in the cavity)

Will post picks of the room and hot chicks as this build progresses and to reward good comments. Will do a few starting pics tomorrow. Thx all

Using strictly absorption for the "first reflection" points has been pointed out numerous times to be a bad idea in other threads. Further, if these reflective areas are properly treated, there is no need for the use of either height or wide speakers. However, if you insist on using these unnecessary point sources, then you will need only absorption to deal with the boundary gain and SBIR that will invariably result from their use. In other words, you have to fix it in order to make it work, and believe it or not, they will not sound nearly as good as if there had not been a speaker there to begin with (assuming a properly treated side wall).

Speakers placed behind a screen will lose high frequency SPL at the listening point. In order to compensate for this, use a high quality DSP. Make sure you don't blow your tweeters though in the compensation process. Hope this helps!!
post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

Using strictly absorption for the "first reflection" points has been pointed out numerous times to be a bad idea in other threads. Further, if these reflective areas are properly treated, there is no need for the use of either height or wide speakers. However, if you insist on using these unnecessary point sources, then you will need only absorption to deal with the boundary gain and SBIR that will invariably result from their use. In other words, you have to fix it in order to make it work, and believe it or not, they will not sound nearly as good as if there had not been a speaker there to begin with (assuming a properly treated side wall).

Speakers placed behind a screen will lose high frequency SPL at the listening point. In order to compensate for this, use a high quality DSP. Make sure you don't blow your tweeters though in the compensation process. Hope this helps!!

You all did my layout plan and I asked for front height speakers. I also have plans to use the material suggested on the first reflection locations, which is very expensive. So correct me here if am wrong.

You are saying using just absorption instead of the quest material it would be better? Just seems like a waste to spend so much on the quest material if only absorption will be more beneficial. But on the other hand....

You're also saying it will sound better with the quest panels if I unhook the front heights, correct?
post #16 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quick poll based on Sierra Mike's comment. Can I drop to a 7.2 setup and lose the back surrounds and heights and still have a great experience?

I can save a bucketload of money. I am worried that Faber doesn't make dipole surrounds, if I lose the back surrounds I was concerned my sides would be too directional. Could I use bookshelfs to mimic dipoles by pointing one set forward (sides) and one backward (back) and would XT32 correct for this to make it work?

I put the 11.2 order on hold for a few days to get some thoughts here.
post #17 of 42
In my humble:D opinion, stick to a 7-2 setup you will not be missing anything. And 7-2 I mean side surround whether or not bipoles/dipoles or front firing bookshelves. Make sure you use back surrounds that's the true way to go that'll give the sound as it is intendant .
post #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

Further, if these reflective areas are properly treated, there is no need for the use of either height or wide speakers.
How will 3 speakers placed at ear level in front of you deliver stable imaging above you? IF you feel that speakers are needed at the sides for stable lateral imaging and speakers are needed at the back to anchor sounds behind you, then why would you not need height speakers to image sounds above you?

The argument for wide speakers is the same as the reason to use a centre speaker: stabilize sounds that would have phantom imaged there anyway. Why use a centre speaker when good mains can throw a convincing phantom centre floating between those speakers? Imaging stability. Likewise, on good 7-speaker layouts, you can hear sounds floating between the fronts and sides. However, as you move, these phantom images move with you. Replacing those phantom images with speakers keeps them anchored at those locations, especially for listeners sitting outside the sweet spot. Just like with a centre speaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

However, if you insist on using these unnecessary point sources, then you will need only absorption to deal with the boundary gain and SBIR that will invariably result from their use. In other words, you have to fix it in order to make it work, and believe it or not, they will not sound nearly as good as if there had not been a speaker there to begin with (assuming a properly treated side wall).
Why would things like SBIR be a problem with heights and wides but not the other 7 speakers?
post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

How will 3 speakers placed at ear level in front of you deliver stable imaging above you? IF you feel that speakers are needed at the sides for stable lateral imaging and speakers are needed at the back to anchor sounds behind you, then why would you not need height speakers to image sounds above you?

The argument for wide speakers is the same as the reason to use a centre speaker: stabilize sounds that would have phantom imaged there anyway. Why use a centre speaker when good mains can throw a convincing phantom centre floating between those speakers? Imaging stability. Likewise, on good 7-speaker layouts, you can hear sounds floating between the fronts and sides. However, as you move, these phantom images move with you. Replacing those phantom images with speakers keeps them anchored at those locations, especially for listeners sitting outside the sweet spot. Just like with a centre speaker.
Why would things like SBIR be a problem with heights and wides but not the other 7 speakers?

Hi Sanjay,

I dont wantto derail this thread and start on Audyssey bashing rampage or Chris K said this or that. There has been plenty of discussion regarding DSX in other threads, and i dont wish to debate it further. This is my opinion, and I was one of the first to hear DSX some years ago in a private demo with Chris K and Luc. Bottom line, what I heard was exactly what I was told I would hear from a very well known acoustician...and I didn't care for it as I had just come from a lousy hotel room which had been treated properly and calibrated properly. The lousy hotel room was superior in sound quality in every way. DSX is not a new concept, and was tried many years ago in a different form. End result...the same.

So, here goes. THX speakers often use waveguides that limit vertical dispersion so that the proportion of floor/ceiling reflections to direct sound is maximized. The horizontal dispersion is increased to help alleviate the so called sweet spot, and increase dispersion for multiple seats. Further, while not as important, we can localize a source in the vertical with only a single ear, but in the horizontal plane, we need both for localization. So, I would argue that the vertical plane (the height speakers, is not as critical as the horizontal plane (wide speakers). Further, you will now often have to treat for SBIR issues with these speakers as they are often placed equidistant from perpendicular surfaces and in fairly close proximity to a tri-corner...not to mention boundary gain being so close to the wall (talking inches here). It is unavoidable unless you severely limit the frequency range or the speakers output. Now you will have to deal with that. Moving onto the horizontal speakers. Modern films take advantage of encoding spatial cues into the soundtrack. These "spatial" cues are not necessarily meant to be point source localized, but rather generally located in time and space in some particular direction. Part of the problem with having side reflections is that the path difference from the reflected sound and the direct sound leads to differences in timing. We are talking milliseconds here. The reflected sounds amplitude is often slightly lower in SPL than the direct sound, but it can be higher. In mid and lower frequencies, this leads to smearing of, especially, the dialogue. So, we absorb that to lower the amplitude a bit so that the smearing is reduced and the timing difference increases. Problem with that is, is that it eliminates the higher frequencies which greatly assist in those spatial cues. We have to preserve those frequencies and ideally diffuse them. If I put a speaker there now I have introduced a point source which is VERY localizable (the part I really don't like). Those side reflections should be enveloping and diffuse and seamlessly integrate the area between the front speakers and side surrounds. Properly positioned speakers, treatment and a calibrated room is amazing in this capability. I prefer to not be able to go BAM! It's ALL coming from right there! Yuck! Not to mention that speaker being right next to a wall since most rooms are width challenged introducing another source of boundary gain. I did not say boundary gain and SBIR were not problems with the other speakers, but why introduce more problems? I understand your argument Sanjay, but it is precisely that localization, which in my opinion, ruins the overall effect. Adding the proper treatment with diffusive properties provides for all seating and not just the sweet spot. In my opinion, you end up with a much more pleasing and enveloping soundstage.

Lastly, in my personal opinion, adding these speakers is costly, not particularly aesthetically pleasing and just plain unnecessary. My two cents.
Edited by SierraMikeBravo - 5/1/13 at 12:47am
post #20 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiovideoholic View Post

You all did my layout plan and I asked for front height speakers. I also have plans to use the material suggested on the first reflection locations, which is very expensive. So correct me here if am wrong.

You are saying using just absorption instead of the quest material it would be better? Just seems like a waste to spend so much on the quest material if only absorption will be more beneficial. But on the other hand....

You're also saying it will sound better with the quest panels if I unhook the front heights, correct?

Absorption would NOT be more beneficial in my opinion. However it comes down to preference. I very much dislike DSX. I have been in many...many rooms properly treated, calibrated and laid out that sound superior to DSX. Again, that is my opinion. If you use the wide speakers (not the heights) I do not see the need for Diffusive treatment since the source has become quite localized...again only for the wides. You lose the advantage of the diffusion because of the point source. Now, if you don't use the wides, then it DOES become advantageous to use Diffusive panelling for the sides. Regarding the use of heights, please see my other post. I feel they are completely unnecessary. But, physics aside, we are really talking more about abstract concept here rather than concrete. I have a particular sound I enjoy, but it may not be quite the sound you enjoy.
Edited by SierraMikeBravo - 5/1/13 at 12:48am
post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

There has been plenty of discussion regarding DSX in other threads, and i dont wish to debate it further.
No argument there Shawn. Having heard DSX multiple times, I'm not a fan, since it generates early reflections that are not in the original recording (amongst other things I didn't like).

However, despite DSX being in the title of this tread, the OP can use DTS Neo:X, which uses extraction rather than generating ambience. Location of heights and wides is pretty much same between both surround processing technologies, so the speaker layout he's considering will remain useful even if he ends up not liking DSX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

Further, while not as important, we can localize a source in the vertical with only a single ear, but in the horizontal plane, we need both for localization. So, I would argue that the vertical plane (the height speakers, is not as critical as the horizontal plane (wide speakers).
In order to localize a source in the vertical plane, you need to have a source in the vertical plane. 3 speakers at ear level are not going to be localized like 2 speakers above you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

Further, you will now often have to treat for SBIR issues with these speakers as they are often placed equidistant from perpendicular surfaces and in fairly close proximity to a tri-corner...not to mention boundary gain being so close to the wall (talking inches here).
In that case, the height speakers should not be placed at/near tri-corners but somewhere between the fronts and sides. Boundry gain can be dealt with the same way you do with surround speakers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

Modern films take advantage of encoding spatial cues into the soundtrack. These "spatial" cues are not necessarily meant to be point source localized, but rather generally located in time and space in some particular direction.
And they will remain general with Neo:X and PLIIz. For example, if you have a 2-channel recording where the vocals are more diffuse and generally located in front of you, then surround processing isn't going to extract those vocals to the centre speaker and give them point-source localization. It works the same way with wide speakers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

I did not say boundary gain and SBIR were not problems with the other speakers, but why introduce more problems?
Because the benefits can outweigh the problems. By your logic, why go from 2 speakers to 5 speakers when it will introduce more problems? Why go from 5 speakers to 7 speakers when it will introduce more problems? And that's the argument for not going to 9 or 11 speakers: they'll just introduce more problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

I understand your argument Sanjay, but it is precisely that localization, which in my opinion, ruins the overall effect.

Lastly, in my personal opinion, adding these speakers is costly, not particularly aesthetically pleasing and just plain unnecessary.
How are you going to reconcile that opinion with newer technologies, like object based audio? At some point in the future, Dolby Atmos (and its DTS counterpart) are going to come to home theatres. What will you tell your clients? The precise localization of Atmos ruins the effect? Sounds flying over your head are unnecessary?

Whenever consumer electronics has wanted to go past the current speaker count, there have always been people arguing that it will be costly, aesthetically unpleasing, unnecessary, introduce more problems and ruin the overall effect we currently enjoy. I can appreciate those warnings, but I (perhaps naïvely) fall on the other side, since my typical reflex is to get excited about new technologies. As much as I like some of the mono recordings in my library, I'll gladly take the "more problems" that come with stereo and surround.
post #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No argument there Shawn. Having heard DSX multiple times, I'm not a fan, since it generates early reflections that are not in the original recording (amongst other things I didn't like).

However, despite DSX being in the title of this tread, the OP can use DTS Neo:X, which uses extraction rather than generating ambience. Location of heights and wides is pretty much same between both surround processing technologies, so the speaker layout he's considering will remain useful even if he ends up not liking DSX.
In order to localize a source in the vertical plane, you need to have a source in the vertical plane. 3 speakers at ear level are not going to be localized like 2 speakers above you.
In that case, the height speakers should not be placed at/near tri-corners but somewhere between the fronts and sides. Boundry gain can be dealt with the same way you do with surround speakers.
And they will remain general with Neo:X and PLIIz. For example, if you have a 2-channel recording where the vocals are more diffuse and generally located in front of you, then surround processing isn't going to extract those vocals to the centre speaker and give them point-source localization. It works the same way with wide speakers.
Because the benefits can outweigh the problems. By your logic, why go from 2 speakers to 5 speakers when it will introduce more problems? Why go from 5 speakers to 7 speakers when it will introduce more problems? And that's the argument for not going to 9 or 11 speakers: they'll just introduce more problems.
How are you going to reconcile that opinion with newer technologies, like object based audio? At some point in the future, Dolby Atmos (and its DTS counterpart) are going to come to home theatres. What will you tell your clients? The precise localization of Atmos ruins the effect? Sounds flying over your head are unnecessary?

Whenever consumer electronics has wanted to go past the current speaker count, there have always been people arguing that it will be costly, aesthetically unpleasing, unnecessary, introduce more problems and ruin the overall effect we currently enjoy. I can appreciate those warnings, but I (perhaps naïvely) fall on the other side, since my typical reflex is to get excited about new technologies. As much as I like some of the mono recordings in my library, I'll gladly take the "more problems" that come with stereo and surround.

Hi Sanjay,

I disagree with the benefits outweaighing the problems. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. A blanket pass isn't in my repitoire. smile.gif I am not against new technologies. However, in this case, it isn't new. It is just rebranded old technology. Been there...then dropped. Kinda like 3D. How long has then been around now and reemerged then dropped, then resurected, then dropped. The problem I see with the market is that it HAS to push forward. Companies cannot sell more of the same thing over and over if they intend on staying in business. They have to "intoduce" "new" technologies. Sometimes these are leaps forward, other times not so much. When that technology is a leap forward, I will be the first to say so. In my opinion, this is the case of the not so much. Further, if a person engages us, I will not advocate a technology just because it is the "latest and greatest" if it really doesn't bring anything beneficial to the table. My job is to save the client hassle and cash where possible. Again, this is just such a case. If you wish to discuss it further, please PM me. smile.gif Just my two cents.
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

I am not against new technologies. However, in this case, it isn't new. It is just rebranded old technology.
No sure which "rebranded old technology" you're talking about, but ALL current surround processing technologies are based on either extracting signals (Dolby PLIIz, DTS Neo:X) or generating signals (Yamaha DSP, Audyssey DSX), with processing for heights & wides falling into both categories. But that doesn't mean they haven't improved and inovated over the years.

If you're philosophically opposed to surround processing, then it's not a question of differences between how each one operates but the fact that they all process the signal. If you see that as inherently bad (messing with the signal), then surround processing isn't for you.

However, some of your objections seem more to do with additional speakers, since you repeately point out potential issues that could arise from placement. So I can't tell whether you're opposed to surround processing or opposed to going beyond 7 speakers, or both. But I hope you understand that others don't want to limit themselves to 5 or 7 channels, like the OP.
post #24 of 42
Thread Starter 
All, I have gotten quite a bit of framing, structural and electrical done and I have painted the acoustic ceiling panels dark.

I am finalizing absorption vs diffusion now. Thinking whole front wall up to 4 ft and first reflection points absorption, above 4 ft and all dipole first reflection points my T-fusor diffusion panels? Also thinking dipoles for both side and rear surrounds and ceiling speakers for my heights. Comments welcome?

[IMG]http://www.avsforum.com/content/type/6 1/id/202917/width/200/height/400[/IMG]
post #25 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasswaiting View Post

Also thinking dipoles for both side and rear surrounds and ceiling speakers for my heights. Comments welcome?
I preferred your original plan to use monopole bookshelf speakers for sides and rears. In-ceiling speakers would work for heights.
post #26 of 42
Thread Starter 
I could go either way, but test after test shows people prefer dipoles when the side speakers are less than 10ft from the listening position. And for my side two chairs they will be only 4 ft from the side speakers, so I am concerned about localization and a smaller surround sound stage. Before I make my final decision I am going to test drive both monopoles and dipoles and return the ones I don't like, I will report back my findings in a real world test.

I have time as I am waiting to see Marantz's new top tier receivers this year which should be in June/July and the new round of projectors don't come out till year end.
post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasswaiting View Post

I could go either way, but test after test shows people prefer dipoles when the side speakers are less than 10ft from the listening position.
Haven't seen those tests. Personally, if a certain sound is intended to come from my left side, then I want it to come from my left side, not bounced off the front and back walls while I sit in the null. YMMV.
post #28 of 42
It is generally preferable to go with dipole side surrounds if the delta in SPL is significantly higher for the outside chairs vs. the inner seats. Now, IF you prefer the sound of direct radiators, then you can use them IF you have the height. You can mount the speakers almost as high as they will go in the room and angle them down. Is this preferable? Depends, but you will likely run into the same issues as you do the heights being so close to perpendicular boundaries, and you will likely have to treat for that. If it were me, I would stick with the dipoles, but it depends on how much room you have to walk as well. Further, if you insist on using the height and wide speakers, then I would try to use the same speakers as you do the LCR to avoid timbral shifts and a more uniform sound stage.
Edited by SierraMikeBravo - 5/7/13 at 3:20pm
post #29 of 42
Thread Starter 
Sierra Mike,

I would love to talk to you in more detail. I appreciate your technical view. I am looking for a mind blowing experience and am getting a lot of dissenting guidance.

Ideas?

T
post #30 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraMikeBravo View Post

Further, if you insist on using the height and wide speakers, then I would try to use the same speakers as you do the LCR to avoid timbral shifts and a more uniform sound stage.

I doubt you'll find too many people willing to mount tower speakers to their ceiling just for the height channels, where you should really only be hearing ambient effects anyway.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home