Originally Posted by m. zillch
I feel sorry for the people who think one type of room can cover 2ch music and another for multi channel. Clearly different genres need different rooms. 1960's psychedelic rock rooms need more lava lamps, color light projectors, and go-go dancers, for example:
I know you're being a touch tongue-in-cheek regarding the "different genres" and lava lamps thing. However, please don't belittle the initial argument by conflating it with nonsense (though, I couldn't say there exists no person that enjoys classical played in a more live room than rock!).
If you believe that measurable room differences, like ETC, should strive for a consistent singular optimal target regardless whether one is optimizing
(*) a room for MCH or 2ch then just state that. More, state what the target should be / look like! I simply give nebulous "live" or "dead" because until we can reach consensus whether that matters, there's really no point digging into what the actual measurements are. I also recognize "live" and "dead" are combination-terms, determined by examining various measurements (and / or simply ones hands and ears if one desires crude estimates).
(*) optimizing is a key word -- sure anything can be jack of multiple trades while mastering none. And, certainly, something can make trade-offs in one domain to optimize another! If you think an optimal 2ch room should have the same raw room response targets as an optimal MCH room, say so. I'll agree they should have similar goals (e.g., they should decay at similar rates across a broadband frequency response). However, achieving that goal while being more live or just killing the room dead are two different ways to achieve the goal of "room shall decay evenly over 20hz-20kHz" -- assuming that's a good goal, though I think there's consensus it is. Of course, the resultant room will not sound the same! This is not even to mention multi-tiered seating theaters and the design goals and compromises required to optimize them for "all" eyes and ears. Goals that most 2ch rooms never need care about.
Please, again, don't fail to realize this is an argument about "optimal" not "good enough". If a person has money for two "optimal" rooms, then one needs not have to "compromise". I'm all game to continue to learn whether a singular room can indeed be optimal for both, though! One day I would love to design a 20 seat theater that also has "holographic 2ch imaging". Though, for the record, I'm unsure I've ever really heard such imaging, but supposedly some would consider that "optimal". What I do know is the imaging in my current room bests anything I've heard w.r.t. how it handles the soundscape it paints. It trades many other things in getting there and "pin-point, headphone-like imaging" (which I personally dislike) is one of them! I've heard tiny pin-point imaging in deader rooms wherein I love their MCH performance. I've heard many things between, too -- like, for example, my car, where I get left, right, and "everything else". I would guess measuring all those environments and the response patterns of the speakers therein may be illuminating!
Originally Posted by m. zillch
If there were such a design differentiation between HT and 2ch. speakers as you imply, wouldn't they sell products optimized for each category? Clearly there are speakers marketed as "for the center channel", 'for the .1 (subwoofer) channel", and "for the surround channels", but can you cite an example of a speaker marketed as being optimized for front L/R in a HT, not 2ch., as you claim there's a distinct need for? I am unaware of any. [premade packages of say "5.1 HT complete systems" don't count. I'm speaking of a speaker sold either individually or as a pair claiming to be "optimized for front L/R HT use as opposed to 2ch."[paraphrased] that the user would add to a center speaker to make the front sound stage of a HT.
I think you're misinterpreting my post. Let me re-quote to bold the imperative part:
Originally Posted by DreamWarrior
The [speakers], however, mostly in selecting appropriate directivity
I did not say, nor do I care, whether a speaker is marketed to a specific target; marketing is not measurements! I said that the different environments may require different measurable
speaker parameters -- in this case, I was specific to mention directivity as a
parameter, one I believe particularly important. Indeed, I went on to clarify in that very same post. Unfortunately, said clarification suffered an edit at your hand...I'd ask why, but it doesn't matter much unless it was intentionally nefarious, which I hope it would not be.... Regardless, I'll re-post it, too:
Originally Posted by DreamWarrior
For MCH, of course, you'd be selecting speakers that can cover your seating area effectively without "spraying sound" everywhere you "don't want it".
Which correlates back to my statement regarding directivity. For example, I'm unlikely to select an omni speaker like the MBL for L/R/C in an optimal MCH setup! But, in a 2ch room, if I wanted a very spacious sound, I may! If I wanted that same MBL 2ch spaciousness in a MCH room without MBLs what would I do? Design the room to more reflective? How would that impact MCH performance?
Regardless, it's a design parameter and depending on how you want to engineer
your room to sound, especially if there's a large seating area, a potentially very important one. This isn't even to mention many other room differences; distance to screen for eye comfort may require a longer distance to people, requiring maybe high power or more efficiency (despite I'd say you always want to strive for efficiency, lol).
Which is to say, IMO, a well engineered
room takes its listener's requirements (bias to MCH or 2ch, seating area, etc) and then crafts the best solution using the proper tools. I think a speaker is a tool that must be properly selected! More, the selection is not by marketing B.S., but by measurements (that are, unfortunately, often absent from all marketing and technical info provided by the manufacturer). Agree?
At this point, I suppose it's sufficient to say that, IMO (again, which I'm willing to be wrong about), I believe that my ideal MCH room is not my ideal 2ch room. I really would prefer to be wrong, as that singular 20 seat, 2ch holographic-imaging, Atmos theater that perhaps exists in my future is calling me! Of course, I'd probably still have a 2ch room, because I love bass and it'd be easier to pressurize a smaller 2ch room...but, money zero object, I'll just buy a few of these babies
. Of course, then I'll just set some requirements best I can and hire an actual engineer to work with me on the design
-- at the moment, I can fund only the Holiday Inn Express acoustic-engineer (me