[lavakv]

The recently announced Integra DRX-8.4 (and I would assume upcoming siblings?) supports a 7.1.4 layout using front height and top middle speakers. See below from the manual. Does anyone have experience with this rare setup? I'm not even sure if typically available hardware has supported this before, so I'm guessing the existing experience will be quite thin.

The closest illustrated layout in the Dolby published guidelines for Atmos are a 7.1.6 which would replicate this but with added rear heights.

 

[Enovare]

The recently announced Integra DRX-8.4 (and I would assume upcoming siblings?) supports a 7.1.4 layout using front height and top middle speakers. See below from the manual. Does anyone have experience with this rare setup? I'm not even sure if typically available hardware has supported this before, so I'm guessing the existing experience will be quite thin.
View attachment 3420334
The closest illustrated layout in the Dolby published guidelines for Atmos are a 7.1.6 which would replicate this but with added rear heights.
View attachment 3420338

Tried that setup in my theatre and was so-so. This was better and real deference!

 

[BASSAHOLIC]

The recently announced Integra DRX-8.4 (and I would assume upcoming siblings?) supports a 7.1.4 layout using front height and top middle speakers. See below from the manual. Does anyone have experience with this rare setup? I'm not even sure if typically available hardware has supported this before, so I'm guessing the existing experience will be quite thin.
View attachment 3420334
The closest illustrated layout in the Dolby published guidelines for Atmos are a 7.1.6 which would replicate this but with added rear heights.
View attachment 3420338

Why wouldn't you go with front and rear heights?

 

[T1G8RS_FAN]

The recently announced Integra DRX-8.4 (and I would assume upcoming siblings?) supports a 7.1.4 layout using front height and top middle speakers. See below from the manual. Does anyone have experience with this rare setup? I'm not even sure if typically available hardware has supported this before, so I'm guessing the existing experience will be quite thin.
View attachment 3420334
The closest illustrated layout in the Dolby published guidelines for Atmos are a 7.1.6 which would replicate this but with added rear heights.
View attachment 3420338

I'm with the others. It really doesn't make any sense to spend the time & effort to do something that will lead to sub-par performance. I mean, just because a processor can do it, doesn't meant that you should.

That said, there is some great info out there to help you set things up to get the most optimal performance, so I would suggest spending more time researching to ensure that you're getting the best possible experience that you can out of your investment.

Here are some good threads for you to check out to help get you on the right track.
Dolby Atmos Setup Mistakes many seem to make.

This is the follow up thread/video to that one, which goes a little deeper in explaining more about why he's suggesting these methods.
Dolby Atmos the dotted lines are not what you think, the...


Hope this helps, and do come back and share your experiences with us.

TF

 

[lavakv]

To each of the above, I agree and wouldn't consider this configuration if I had alternatives. I should have added the disclaimer to prevent this predictable and reasonable response, the kind I'm usually on the sending end of instead of receiving (i.e. just do it right).

I would need to reroute both the primary supply and return plenums along with various plumbing (water and natural gas) and wiring to place rear heights where they would make any sense and have enough vertical separation from side/rear surrounds. It would also have them quite close to the second row ears.

Current setup is satisfying with 7.x.2 top middle over the first row (second row are the cheap seats on an elevated couch) so I don't have the impetus to make that much dust for more overhead panning which I know is superior......but if a few months from now my receiver provides an excuse to build some more speakers for front height (or temporarily test using some on hand) I'll give it a go and report back. That is, unless others have tried this outlandish setup?

I'm with the others. It really doesn't make any sense to spend the time & effort to do something that will lead to sub-par performance. I mean, just because a processor can do it, doesn't meant that you should.

The question is, sub-par compared to what? Properly placed/separated front and rear overheads, agreed sub-par. Compared to just top middle, perhaps not and at that point "just because a processor can do it" might be all the excuse I need! I'd have to think there would be some enhancement of front to overhead to back panning with those added channels between LCR and the top middles.

If that experiment proves me wrong, it would seem the Integra could drive some transducers (passive subwoofer assignment as they call it) with the height 2 channels, though not sure how/if that would be integrated with DLBC (which is why I'm considering the Integra or TBA siblings in the first place).

 

[BASSAHOLIC]

To each of the above, I agree and wouldn't consider this configuration if I had alternatives. I should have added the disclaimer to prevent this predictable and reasonable response, the kind I'm usually on the sending end of instead of receiving (i.e. just do it right).

I would need to reroute both the primary supply and return plenums along with various plumbing (water and natural gas) and wiring to place rear heights where they would make any sense and have enough vertical separation from side/rear surrounds. It would also have them quite close to the second row ears.

Current setup is satisfying with 7.x.2 top middle over the first row (second row are the cheap seats on an elevated couch) so I don't have the impetus to make that much dust for more overhead panning which I know is superior......but if a few months from now my receiver provides an excuse to build some more speakers for front height (or temporarily test using some on hand) I'll give it a go and report back. That is, unless others have tried this outlandish setup?

The question is, sub-par compared to what? Properly placed/separated front and rear overheads, agreed sub-par. Compared to just top middle, perhaps not and at that point "just because a processor can do it" might be all the excuse I need! I'd have to think there would be some enhancement of front to overhead to back panning with those added channels between LCR and the top middles.

If that experiment proves me wrong, it would seem the Integra could drive some transducers (passive subwoofer assignment as they call it) with the height 2 channels, though not sure how/if that would be integrated with DLBC (which is why I'm considering the Integra or TBA siblings in the first place).

Sounds like you might be the first on the block. Look forward to finding out how it sounds!

 

[Jobio]

The recently announced Integra DRX-8.4 (and I would assume upcoming siblings?) supports a 7.1.4 layout using front height and top middle speakers. See below from the manual. Does anyone have experience with this rare setup? I'm not even sure if typically available hardware has supported this before, so I'm guessing the existing experience will be quite thin.

Last year’s Denon models with 9+ channels support this and other unique setups. But as others said, not sure why you would do this instead of 4 atmos (“top” in Denon’s phrasing).

 

[T1G8RS_FAN]

To each of the above, I agree and wouldn't consider this configuration if I had alternatives. I should have added the disclaimer to prevent this predictable and reasonable response, the kind I'm usually on the sending end of instead of receiving (i.e. just do it right).

I would need to reroute both the primary supply and return plenums along with various plumbing (water and natural gas) and wiring to place rear heights where they would make any sense and have enough vertical separation from side/rear surrounds. It would also have them quite close to the second row ears.

Current setup is satisfying with 7.x.2 top middle over the first row (second row are the cheap seats on an elevated couch) so I don't have the impetus to make that much dust for more overhead panning which I know is superior......but if a few months from now my receiver provides an excuse to build some more speakers for front height (or temporarily test using some on hand) I'll give it a go and report back. That is, unless others have tried this outlandish setup?

The question is, sub-par compared to what? Properly placed/separated front and rear overheads, agreed sub-par. Compared to just top middle, perhaps not and at that point "just because a processor can do it" might be all the excuse I need! I'd have to think there would be some enhancement of front to overhead to back panning with those added channels between LCR and the top middles.

If that experiment proves me wrong, it would seem the Integra could drive some transducers (passive subwoofer assignment as they call it) with the height 2 channels, though not sure how/if that would be integrated with DLBC (which is why I'm considering the Integra or TBA siblings in the first place).

Here is a recent quote from @Jeremy Anderson, who is a very knowledgeable member here on these topics, addressing this exact configuration that someone else was considering as well.

"Because while front height will at least give you the front of the height plane, the back of the "room" for Atmos will be at your top mids. And sounds placed at the top mid position in the renderer (the height beds in Atmos) would then be imaging half-way between your front heights and top mids... further forward in the room."

Personally, I would just wait until it can be done with proper placement. Again, I'm just making suggestions to help you get the most optimal results, but at the end of the day it's your decision to make.

 

[Wardog555]

sorry to hear your not prepared to listen to us and consider to do it right.
time and time again people try to waste ours and your time.
i wont discuss miss information like your proposed setup if its not in Dolby specified guidelines.

there are methods to do it right and all you need to know is this. 45-55 degrees elevation from the main listening position from ear level.
please don't bother if you are unprepared to make any needed changes. whether its ceiling mounted. move seating etc. another room is an option.
you might want to take a look at the Dolby atmos mistakes thread and YouTube video. there's is overwhelming postive feedback that when people have adjusted their speakers and not one has ever been negative.
the document in my signature has all the information you require when it comes to speaker placement.
you have every opportunity to do it right and we are here to encourage and support that. make a mistake in doing so. and the experience will be different.

have a good day

 

[T1G8RS_FAN]

sorry to hear your not prepared to listen to us and consider to do it right.
time and time again people try to waste ours and your time.
i wont discuss miss information like your proposed setup if its not in Dolby specified guidelines.

there are methods to do it right and all you need to know is this. 45-55 degrees elevation from the main listening position from ear level.
please don't bother if you are unprepared to make any needed changes. whether its ceiling mounted. move seating etc. another room is an option.
you might want to take a look at the Dolby atmos mistakes thread and YouTube video. there's is overwhelming postive feedback that when people have adjusted their speakers and not one has ever been negative.
the document in my signature has all the information you require when it comes to speaker placement.
you have every opportunity to do it right and we are here to encourage and support that. make a mistake in doing so. and the experience will be different.

have a good day

Bruh! The point here is to try and help educate folks...not piss them off or belittle them, so for the love of Maynard, can you please reel in the attitude that you have a nasty trend of exuding? It really is getting a bit old...

BTW, I'm not offended or whatever other adjective you might consider. I'm sincerely just trying to inform you that your behavior at times is unbecoming, so it would be more beneficial to the folks seeking advice if you at least try to be a little more cordial with your responses, because they don't know what they don't know. Hence, them seeking advice...and preferably without being attacked. Lol


Hope all is well,

TF

 

[Ickisrulz]

I asked this same question a couple weeks ago. I was given the same answers. I gather that most of the people on this site have perfectly configured rooms allowing for ideal speaker placement.

To ask what would happen when you don't follow the guidance (and try to compromise) angers certain forum members because you're "wasting their time." Of course they cannot ignore the posts either.

I will eventually try front heights using some temporary bookshelf speaker placement and see how it sounds with my middle tops. I suggest you do the same and see how it works out.

 

[lavakv]

Quick perusal of The Wardog's activity here would suggest he is one to be ignored, and as such I shall do so. I could offer comment on what little detail is provided by his signature (why a 65" TV instead of a projector and much larger AT screen which would allow "proper" placement of the all important center channel because in that guy's world any compromise should just mean giving up and listening to the radio; or why not list details regarding the ideal 9.X.6 setup he boasts)...but I won't do that. 🙂

Back to the helpful adults in the room; I'm just looking to gauge whether adding front heights (at appropriate Dolby angles) to existing top middles would be positive or negative and gain any insight from others who have already tried. I know firsthand that a properly oriented set of four true overheads trumps anything with front heights, but as I stated adding top rears would essentially require lifting half my house. I assure all that I have spent many moments of agony attempting to figure out something reasonable to no avail (best option would be digging basement deeper).

Forgive the remnants of movie night with the kids, but notice the bulkhead just behind the first row (and heaven help us if The Wardog notices those two lally columns😱scandal even though the second row has clear visibility past them and they disappear from peripheral in the black hole, and surround locations have been chosen to avoid blocking line of sight to front row ears). The back half of the ceiling continues at about that same bulkhead height towards an addition over a crawlspace, so rear overheads wouldn't have much angular separation from the rear surrounds. It's my understanding/experience that content which Atmos (or other formats) attempts to place above but slightly behind would be split between top mids and rear surrounds anyway, so adding a true channel at a nearly identical angle doesn't make sense (to me).

Here is a recent quote from @Jeremy Anderson, who is a very knowledgeable member here on these topics, addressing this exact configuration that someone else was considering as well.

"Because while front height will at least give you the front of the height plane, the back of the "room" for Atmos will be at your top mids. And sounds placed at the top mid position in the renderer (the height beds in Atmos) would then be imaging half-way between your front heights and top mids... further forward in the room."

This is intriguing. If Atmos is truly going to "relocate" the virtual front-back centerline of the height layer halfway between top mid and front height, then I agree adding front heights to existing top middles would be a definitive negative. Objects intended to be 100% in the rear of the height layer presenting in the top mids wouldn't work, and objects 100% in the front of the height layer being only 20-30° off front soundstage would diminish the overhead feel.

@Jeremy Anderson Is there any sort of document or technical talk you pulled that info from, or did you already try this oddball setup yourself? If the renderer behaves as you said it would seem the rearmost pair in any configuration of four are always thought of as behind MLP, which would be an odd decision by Dolby and would invalidate Denon/Integra having distinct configurations for FH+TM vs FH+TR. If so, top mids should really just be called/identified as (improperly placed) top rears if front heights are added.

Edit: And given that this seems such a pain point (and I can understand why with the occasional facepalm question on this topic combined with The Wardog on the prowl), to be clear I'm not doubting, just want to read/hear more about the logic the renderer is using in this case.

 

[T1G8RS_FAN]

I asked this same question a couple weeks ago. I was given the same answers. I gather that most of the people on this site have perfectly configured rooms allowing for ideal speaker placement.

To ask what would happen when you don't follow the guidance (and try to compromise) angers certain forum members because you're "wasting their time." Of course they cannot ignore the posts either.

I will eventually try front heights using some temporary bookshelf speaker placement and see how it sounds with my middle tops. I suggest you do the same and see how it works out.

The quote I posted above was actually from your thread, where it was thoroughly explained as to why it doesn't work. Hence, sharing the same info with the OP here.

As for your comment citing most people having perfectly configured rooms allowing for ideal placement, that's not necessarily true. What is true though, is that those with proper speaker placement, or as close to optimal as possible, have followed the best practices as closely as they could, and they have been rewarded with a great performing system. That's the whole point of the best practices to begin with, because without them, most folks would have sub-par experiences.

FWIW, I don't have a perfect room, or perfect placement. However, I do have a very optimal setup because I did my due diligence and armed myself with the necessary information needed to get a great experience out of my investment, and the advice that I try to pass along to others that come here seeking help is derived from utilizing that knowledge that I gained and achieving successful results, so hopefully what I've explained will also help you to understand that encouraging others to follow poor practices just because you are choosing to do so is only doing them a disservice, and that's not the goal here.

That said, I'm still not sure why you've ignored the great advice that was given to you on your thread, aside from the 1 person that doesn't know how to talk to people, but I am 100% sincere about what I've explained here, so please don't take offense to any of it, because nothing said was meant to be malicious in any way.

 

[T1G8RS_FAN]

Quick perusal of The Wardog's activity here would suggest he is one to be ignored, and as such I shall do so. I could offer comment on what little detail is provided by his signature (why a 65" TV instead of a projector and much larger AT screen which would allow "proper" placement of the all important center channel because in that guy's world any compromise should just mean giving up and listening to the radio; or why not list details regarding the ideal 9.X.6 setup he boasts)...but I won't do that. 🙂

Back to the helpful adults in the room; I'm just looking to gauge whether adding front heights (at appropriate Dolby angles) to existing top middles would be positive or negative and gain any insight from others who have already tried. I know firsthand that a properly oriented set of four true overheads trumps anything with front heights, but as I stated adding top rears would essentially require lifting half my house. I assure all that I have spent many moments of agony attempting to figure out something reasonable to no avail (best option would be digging basement deeper).

Forgive the remnants of movie night with the kids, but notice the bulkhead just behind the first row (and heaven help us if The Wardog notices those two lally columns😱scandal even though the second row has clear visibility past them and they disappear from peripheral in the black hole, and surround locations have been chosen to avoid blocking line of sight to front row ears). The back half of the ceiling continues at about that same bulkhead height towards an addition over a crawlspace, so rear overheads wouldn't have much angular separation from the rear surrounds. It's my understanding/experience that content which Atmos (or other formats) attempts to place above but slightly behind would be split between top mids and rear surrounds anyway, so adding a true channel at a nearly identical angle doesn't make sense (to me).
View attachment 3420694


This is intriguing. If Atmos is truly going to "relocate" the virtual front-back centerline of the height layer halfway between top mid and front height, then I agree adding front heights to existing top middles would be a definitive negative. Objects intended to be 100% in the rear of the height layer presenting in the top mids wouldn't work, and objects 100% in the front of the height layer being only 20-30° off front soundstage would diminish the overhead feel.

@Jeremy Anderson Is there any sort of document or technical talk you pulled that info from, or did you already try this oddball setup yourself? If the renderer behaves as you said it would seem the rearmost pair in any configuration of four are always thought of as behind MLP, which would be an odd decision by Dolby and would invalidate Denon/Integra have distinct configurations for FH+TM vs FH+TR. If so, top mids should really just be called/identified as (improperly placed) top rears if front heights are added.

Keep in mind that the renderer, or basically how the studios mix the panning objects is assuming proper speaker placement, so we have to do our part in order to allow those effects to come through as intended.

Also, I get what you're saying about the AVR's allowing top mids & front heights to be configured together, but is that really what their intention is with this? Or does it just happen to be part of allowing all of the speaker placements to be configured together? I ask this, because Auro3D, DTS:X, and Atmos all have different speaker configurations, and there are people on these forums that have multi-format setups, so this feature is handy for those that want to utilize it, which actually does make sense now that I think about it. Perhaps it would be a good question to ask in the owner's thread? Lol

 

[niterida]

I ran your proposed setup and it sounded good. But it was set as Front and Rear with my rears slightly behind the seats, not Front and Mid. With my setup you still had the full F-R panning, but it was mostly in front of you. Still sounded better than just 2 Mids.
However I would do whatever you can to get the Mids as far back as possible. Your photo is too dark but it looks like you could easily mount them behind the duct running across the room, and given their size the drivers shouldn't be blocked by the duct ? Can you take clear pics of the rear part of the room and ceiling and we might be able to give better suggestions.

 

[lavakv]

Keep in mind that the renderer, or basically how the studios mix the panning objects is assuming proper speaker placement, so we have to do our part in order to allow those effects to come through as intended.

Also, I get what you're saying about the AVR's allowing top mids & front heights to be configured together, but is that really what their intention is with this? Or does it just happen to be part of allowing all of the speaker placements to be configured together? I ask this, because Auro3D, DTS:X, and Atmos all have different speaker configurations, and there are people on these forums that have multi-format setups, so this feature is handy for those that want to utilize it, which actually does make sense now that I think about it. Perhaps it would be a good question to ask in the owner's thread? Lol

You beat me to the Auro 3D punch, as both the Denon and Integra products mentioned here which allow the seemingly "flawed for Atmos" FH+TM configuration also support Auro 3D (via update in Integra's case) where that might be more tolerable/beneficial.

Obviously placing speakers any-ol-where in the room and telling the receiver they are top-rears (for example) is silly, but to your point of "proper placement", how does the mixing artist account for X.2 vs X.4 vs X.6 layouts? I don't think they do; isn't the decoding device (AVR) deciding where to "best" send a sound based on where we have told it speakers exist compared to where that sound should be placed in the room? Up high, to the right, and forward translates in my current setup as top-mid-right (by default), but in yours it would be top-front-right (better). If speakers exist in the FH positions though, couldn't/shouldn't there be some way for the decoding device to use the speaker in that location to bias the overhead sound forward from my top-mid-right? Maybe I'm straying towards a complaint about Dolby instead of a question now!

 

[T1G8RS_FAN]

You beat me to the Auro 3D punch, as both the Denon and Integra products mentioned here which allow the seemingly "flawed for Atmos" FH+TM configuration also support Auro 3D (via update in Integra's case) where that might be more tolerable/beneficial.

Obviously placing speakers any-ol-where in the room and telling the receiver they are top-rears (for example) is silly, but to your point of "proper placement", how does the mixing artist account for X.2 vs X.4 vs X.6 layouts? I don't think they do; isn't the decoding device (AVR) deciding where to "best" send a sound based on where we have told it speakers exist compared to where that sound should be placed in the room? Up high, to the right, and forward translates in my current setup as top-mid-right (by default), but in yours it would be top-front-right (better). If speakers exist in the FH positions though, couldn't/shouldn't there be some way for the decoding device to use the speaker in that location to bias the overhead sound forward from my top-mid-right? Maybe I'm straying towards a complaint about Dolby instead of a question now!

IIRC, with having just the top mids selected, the objects will pan from the fronts, to the top mids, to the surrounds, or rear surrounds if you have a 7 channel base layer. So, as @Jeremy Anderson describes, if you have front heights selected, the objects will pan from the fronts, up to the front heights, to the top mids , to the surrounds. However, unlike with just the top mids selected, which will direct all of the overhead objects through them, if you have front heights selected it will still only share those overhead objects between the front heights & top mids in that upper bed layer, and that's what I believe he was referring to by stating that all of the overhead objects will be forward of the listening position.

Again, Jeremy is one of the more knowledgeable members on here concerning these topics, but this is probably also a great question to ask on either the AVR's owner's thread, or even the Atmos thread. Regardless, hopefully he'll chime in at some point since I've mentioned him a couple of times now, so he should get a notification for that.

FWIW, while I have seen these types of questions asked on here before, I kinda gloss over some of this stuff at times simply due to the fact that I was so adamant in my quest to achieve the goal of a proper .4 configuration with top front/rear...BUT...I didn't completely ignore it altogether. Lol

That said, after seeing the pic you posted of your room, would moving your seating forward be beyond the realm of possibilities to allow the space for your top mids to become your top rears and then installing top fronts? You really wouldn't have to move it that far since all you would need is the rears to be at 125 degrees, and then place the fronts at 55 degrees (although, you would probably want to rotate the current speakers so that they're aiming towards the MLP). This would give you 70 degrees of separation between them, which would fall into the tolerable allowances and still have proper imaging...??

Just some food for thought...

 

[T1G8RS_FAN]

I ran your proposed setup and it sounded good. But it was set as Front and Rear with my rears slightly behind the seats, not Front and Mid. With my setup you still had the full F-R panning, but it was mostly in front of you. Still sounded better than just 2 Mids.
However I would do whatever you can to get the Mids as far back as possible. Your photo is too dark but it looks like you could easily mount them behind the duct running across the room, and given their size the drivers shouldn't be blocked by the duct ? Can you take clear pics of the rear part of the room and ceiling and we might be able to give better suggestions.

Just noticed your post, and while I suggested to move the seating forward so he could set the top mids as top rears, this may be a better idea if he's unable to move the seating.

 

[Jeremy Anderson]

This is intriguing. If Atmos is truly going to "relocate" the virtual front-back centerline of the height layer halfway between top mid and front height, then I agree adding front heights to existing top middles would be a definitive negative. Objects intended to be 100% in the rear of the height layer presenting in the top mids wouldn't work, and objects 100% in the front of the height layer being only 20-30° off front soundstage would diminish the overhead feel.

@Jeremy Anderson Is there any sort of document or technical talk you pulled that info from, or did you already try this oddball setup yourself? If the renderer behaves as you said it would seem the rearmost pair in any configuration of four are always thought of as behind MLP, which would be an odd decision by Dolby and would invalidate Denon/Integra having distinct configurations for FH+TM vs FH+TR. If so, top mids should really just be called/identified as (improperly placed) top rears if front heights are added.

Edit: And given that this seems such a pain point (and I can understand why with the occasional facepalm question on this topic combined with The Wardog on the prowl), to be clear I'm not doubting, just want to read/hear more about the logic the renderer is using in this case.

I've read the renderer documentation, all of Dolby's patents on Atmos, setup guides, etc. as well as helping a bit with the Spatial Audio Calibration Toolkit. Just because Denon supports it, that doesn't mean the behavior necessarily changes. A bit of the between-layer assumptions change, but as far as the height plane, the underlying logic is that the foremost speaker pair represents the 0.0 coordinate longitudinally and the rearmost speaker pair represents 1.0. If you only have top mids, that whole 0.0-1.0 range is constrained to that speaker pair, so any movement overhead that you hear is done by way of the object steering between the ear level and height layers. If you have x.x.4, whatever the designation assigned, see above. Foremost is 0.0, rearmost is 1.0.

So if an object is at the top mid location in the mix (0.5 coordinate longitudinally), it will play back at equal amplitude between your 4 heights - regardless of their assignment. So effectively, it would image between the two pairs of speakers, even if set to front height/top mid.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't do it, so long as you know the behavior to expect. Your top mids in that picture will tend to get a bit of precedence even with level matching and proper delays, meaning you may still get top mid objects placed just in front of your seating perceptually... and at least then if an object moves between layers, the front height speakers may help anchor that move up-and-over a bit better than if you're just trying to image between your LCR and top mid. You'd also get movement of dynamic objects front-to-mid.

It won't be perfect... but with a bit of tweaking, I think you could get better results than just running x.x.2. You might have to play with the levels a bit (and delays) to get imaging to where it doesn't feel dragged forward so much with actual content.

 

[robbyc30]

Isn’t dealing with this placement imbalance the reason you must tell the receiver where your speakers are? If your Atmos speakers are properly placed and you tell the receiver that, a .5 signal will be placed equidistant front to back. But if you have front heights on the front wall and top middles above you, and you set up the receiver for that configuration, doesn’t it adjust to make sure the cues are placed correctly within that speaker arrangement? If it doesn’t, then what is the point of giving the receiver that information?