Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

@thespeakerdude When we speak at low levels our voices don't sound the same as when we speak louder as does a saxophone that plays softly doesn't sound like one playing loudly. When someone has automatic loudness DSP they are fooling themselves in more ways than one. As you said speakers and amps don't perform the same, the Fletcher Munsen curve is not the same, and the physics of the acoustic waveform are not the same in real life. I think part of audiophiles confusion is of course #1 marketing to rich people based on arrogance, but a close #2 is living in 2 worlds of music. If an audiophile wants to recreate an analog orchestra there are much different considerations than recreating a modern music group with computer based information. 

My Spiro Steinway grand that plays by its self is the perfect example of high end audio it sounds nearly perfect. There is so much difference between high end audio systems and the real thing it's not even worth talking about. When we see live music it's usually run through a PA and take it from me there are huge compromises when it comes to fidelity in every PA system and operator. I believe the answer to this problem is to understand the differences in our goals.

@thespeakerdude I’m with you. 
 

If you want to significantly change the sound of a system, transducers- speakers and phono cartridges - are the way to do it.

An open question:  Is this above statement about change something audiophiles agree with?

@lonemountain Well said, marketing is the guiding force in high end audio. I understand cutting edge equipment is important but DACs that go way beyond what any human will ever hear, $25k anti vibration equipment racks colored fuses in which the PC circuits start and end in traces, marketing to the most gullible. Maybe it's time to form an audiophile society along with the AES or something like that because this is getting really silly.

Audiophiles like to use the word transparency. At moderate listening levels, the speaker will always be least transparent part perhaps with the exception of a turntable. No external amplifier that is not designed to interact with and drive one specific driver, in one specific configuration, can achieve the transparency of an application specific amplification.

@pcrhkr The only difference between a "plate amp" and a "chassis amp" (in an enclosed box) is the metal that surrounds the actual amplifier circuitry inside. Seriously- its packaging. nothing more.

Some of these "plate amps" amps you are describing might be crappy entry level amps, where the purpose is to build as cheap a system as possible, but we are not talking about that. That’s comparing an audiophile amp to a junk amp that was never intended to compete. So thinking a plate amp is crap is equal to saying "all speaker cables sound the same", or "all Class D amps suck" or some other generalization that does not prove itself true.

In the case of ATC, we make exactly the same amp outboard and onboard with heatsinks showing on the back of the speaker - a "plate amp"- that can be removed and serviced, should need arise. ATC also makes a fully discrete on board "plate amp" in their SE series, but these amps are better than the ATC chassis amps and are concealed inside the box with remote power supplies and all kinds of audiophile parts.

Every time this on board or outboard amp thing arises it seems like the ""active is not good " crowd is saying "the amp makes the most difference of any component so I need to be able to upgrade that". I would challenge that idea. It does make a difference, no doubt, but it’s certainly not THE most important.  I smell marketing.

Brad

@pcrhkr Look at it this way if you spent 500k on your system buying an amp and speakers from different companies one thing you know for sure is that those speakers and that amp aren't made for each other and could sound much better and be made more efficient if they designed synergistically. Audiophiles like to play around more than they want to own the best sound systems, no engineer thinks speakers/drivers and amps shouldn't be made for each other, so why isn't this the case, answer because audiophiles like to play with gear more than listen to it, I think.

Powered speakers sound great....but. your listening not to your high-end amplifier but the powered speakers plate amp. Passive speakers, you're listening to your audiophile system. I think powered speakers are like having tone controls on a pre-amp or integrated. If that is what you like. Oh, powered is impressive, but does it sound real? Natural? 

@erik_squires wrote:

I’m not sure if in this thread I already said it but here:

My main speakers use passive crossover which allows me to use a Luxman amplifier which I love. My next project is a 3-way self-powered center channel. That will allow me to avoid a lot of part soldering, and optimize the components in the time domain, and the final system in the frequency domain while sitting on my entertainment center.

I don’t understand the zealotry of either approach.

The active speaker will be a lot quicker to assemble, and give me time alignment features I need due to the driver arrangment, as well as higher order crossover angles, All of this helps with creating wide-dispersion. My main speakers, by using a single channel per speaker, let me select exactly the sound of an amplifier I want, and keep things simple.

For home, there’s no clear cut winner. In a professional, high power situation there’s no contest, line level crossovers and DSP wins every time.

We’ve been there at earlier junctures already, but nonetheless:

Depending on one’s view of "simplicity" you could in fact have the best of both worlds here. I recently went from 3 different amps - both with regard to brand, topology/principle and all - to 3 amps from the same manufacturer and series/model (MC² Audio T-series, class A/B) in my outboard configured fully active setup; that is, two similar amps, and the third one from the same series but just slightly less powerful. For all intents and purposes they’re sonically alike.

I’d heard the installations series amps (S and T-series) from the manufacturer at a few prior occasions, both through passive and outboard active speaker setups, and was stricken by what I figured to be their contribution to the overall sound as both even-handed, versatile and unflappable sounding, while combining insight and an organic imprinting - over the entire frequency range. They do what they have to do and get out of the way, so to speak.

To me this was an indication of amps that had "the whole package" to fulfill my sonic preferences and specific setup context, and so set out to try their inclusion and do away with the previous mantra of "different amps dedicated to their specific driver and frequency range" to instead take on the approach of similar and versatile amps. You think 575 watts/8 ohms dedicated to a direct-connection (sans passive XO) horn/driver combo with 111dB sensitivity from ~600Hz on up is shooting above the target? I say leave aside theory and take an unbiased listen - how it sounds to your ears is all that matters, as you know quite well. Suffice to say the experiment turned out well, so much so that I’m not looking back.

And this brings me to your situation: you could combine your treasured amp choice, outboard actively, with all the opportunities given with a DSP solution. If an overabundance of wattages trouble you the amps needn’t be as powerful when actively configured just by virtue of being freed of looking into a passive cross-over, not least considering they’re divided into their specific channel-to-driver element and covering a limited frequency range instead of full-range.

The element of simplicity, the lack of which worries you, could be maintained, certainly insofar you chose what’s essentially the same amps for the respective driver/frequency sections. Merely multiplying similar sections here in my view isn’t complexity per se, and remember: you’re replacing one element (i.e.: the passive XO), which in itself presents a plethora of challenges to the amp, with another element that’s simply moved outboard to signal level and gives the amps far better working conditions. More cables, yes, but they needn’t be different to one another either.

What I don’t understand is the need for division here. Indeed I’d wager you can have your cake and eat it too, while challenging your stance that there’s no clear cut winner in a domestic scenario with regard to passive vs. active implementation.

@erik_squires 

Thanks for the reply, my bass has sufficient dynamic range and is smooth. You answered my question, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I really don't need to go beyond the two subs I have now. Thanks!

@kota1  - Properly integrated a sub is not directional. 

There are two things to consider when thinking about adding subs:

1. Total output power and dynamic range
2. Response smoothness

If your bass response is ragged due to room modes and you are unwilling or unable to fix it via other means then another sub placed correctly may help, but the placement is driven by the modes you are trying to remove.

@erik_squires

Sounds like a good project with the CC. In my system I have two CC, one active connected with the XLR output connected below my screen, and one passive connected with the RCA output connected above.

Question, right now I use two subs and I am happy (you can see the measurements in my profile). My room is not that big, would their be any benefit to adding more subs? I am thinking about adding one for my Atmos height channels and mounting it high on the wall (it is a flat sub designed for wall mounting). Do you think it would add any value? Thanks

BTW, those Butcher Block racks in your system look great.

I’m not sure if in this thread I already said it but here:

My main speakers use passive crossover which allows me to use a Luxman amplifier which I love. My next project is a 3-way self-powered center channel. That will allow me to avoid a lot of part soldering, and optimize the components in the time domain, and the final system in the frequency domain while sitting on my entertainment center.

I don’t understand the zealotry of either approach.

The active speaker will be a lot quicker to assemble, and give me time alignment features I need due to the driver arrangment, as well as higher order crossover angles, All of this helps with creating wide-dispersion. My main speakers, by using a single channel per speaker, let me select exactly the sound of an amplifier I want, and keep things simple.

For home, there's no clear cut winner.  In a professional, high power situation there's no contest, line level crossovers and DSP wins every time.

 There is no practical way to repair a D-class amp.

No but plenty of plate amps with DSP built in to replace it with.

sounds_real_audio

11-21-2022 at 01:07pm 

So how do you protect the amplifier inside the speaker from the rear waves off the drivers. That rear wave is equal too the wave coming from the front of the speaker? 

Velodyne had long since incased a large portion of the plate components in silicone caulking. Of the five models I've owned since the ULD-18 the only failure I've experienced was with one of my DD Plus' remote control from a battery leak. My two DD-12 Plus have been auto on for the past eleven years.  

@kingharold , that is a great way to get what you want, if you want it done right, DIY. Fortunately you have the chops to make it happen. Interesting how you had the freedom to go in any direction and you chose active! Nice job.

I totally agree about the virtues of active speakers.  My triamplified, fully horn loaded, DEQX DSP crossed over and corrected, DIY speakers are a good example of active speakers that allow the user to select enclosures (horns), drivers, amplifiers and DSP.  I first cobbled together the speakers in 2004. Since then I changed woofers, bass horns, midrange drivers, went through a total of eight different amplifiers and two different DEQX DSPs and programming and reprogramming the DSP (no simple task) over and over  before I got the system to sound and measure as I wanted it to.  It took me a total of thirteen years to arrive at the sound I enjoy today.

I could have bought commercial active speakers without all the trial and error work, but what fun would that be?  That would be like hiring someone to hug and kiss my sweetheart for me.

Still feeding the troll, I see.

@noromance 

If you wanted to use tube amps you would choose an external active crossover, for example:

My tube amps would overheat inside speaker cabinets. 

@kota1 absolutely true, I’ve never been in a studio that sounded better than my 2 channel system. I’ve listened to many more pro systems than audiophiles but the audiophiles care so much more the have much more sophisticated systems, they have more expensive systems, they care about the sound more. This makes me think how can the final product be more than the original. it is also absolutely true that the ears of the great engineers like Al Schmitt had experience they knew what great bands voices and pianos sounded like through their speakers they used for years that sounded horrible, they knew what great sound was through their own ringing and dimmed hearing.
Audiophiles listen and describe music in a way that is usually far above the detail that engineers and mixers create. I heard things on my new Genelecs that I’m sure the mixer didn’t hear or else they would have fixed it, there are always limitations in the real world there are none as an audiophile maybe just money, knowledge, and self delusion, like thinking that amps and speakers shouldn’t be made for each other.

@donavabdear

I am a bit envious of you, @lonemountain ​​​​@brianlucey who get to personally check out these legendary spaces. If the kota walked in the only speaker you would hear is the intercom speaker "security" and that would be a short visit as I get the boot.

I tapped as many engineers for wisdom as I could when setting up my space and continue to benefit from the generosity of your community. Totally different to actually see and listen in those studios where so much great content has been created (and still is). The "aha" takeaway I have gleaned from your posts so far is how different your pro system is from your personal system. The grass on the pro side may be different, but not necessarily greener. As for the speakers my takeaway from that shot of studio C was they were all identical, Steve said they were all full range, and look like they placed with absolute precision. Even though we all may have different rooms, speakers, and budgets, most of us can attempt to be precise as possible with setup and placement. Remember how I nudged you about your center channel? Moving it was no biggie and then you get a better result for your investment.

@kota1 Great YouTube video, Thanks. Last time I was in studio C at Capitol John Mayor had easily 2 dozen amps in the mix room testing them all out, amazing. The speakers they are using don't look very good, square, not point source, not heavy, they can choose any speaker they want they didn't go for super turbos. This is why Capitol, Abby Road, who has done the same thing, not putting in expensive speakers, are the best.

@mijostyn Thank you for the note on line arrays.

@lonemountain , it must feel like you are a fly on the walls, nice to get the inside scoop. The problems you posted about atmos music applies to movies as well. You have great mixes and weak mixes. The best mix I have heard so far is the kraftwerk catalogue on bluray. At reference level it is a great concert mix. I really like the Beatles remixes too. I am using more Tidal to stream than apple music. Apple just sounds a bit bright for my room.

@mijostyn , if you like 2 channel all good, maybe you can send capitol record studios some pointers on their speaker selection. Who knows, maybe they’ll outsource a custom build for you!

I really like the flexibility to upmix certain tracks. Vinyl guys swap out cartridges=$.

Digital guys swap out DAC’s= $.

Immersive music guys push a button on the remote. Every recording can benefit from how it is played back in your room and you still have 2 channel as one of the many options.

It is a matter of preference and taste, not better or worse. One example that includes measurements and test tones. He discusses 2 channel music upmixing at 5:30:

@kota1 , what I see in those pictures is a whole bunch of cheap loudspeakers scattered about a room that was not originally designed for audio. Not my kind of system. 

@thespeakerdude is correct that DSP can do nothing about dispersion which is why room management is just as important, maybe even more so if you have a processor. My own approach is to use speakers in arrays that limit dispersion to minimize room interaction. All the systems I have heard that floated my boat all used speakers with limited dispersion. You can overdo it in that regard. Flat panel ESLs are a great example. In cases where one is using digital "room control" which is really "speaker control" In rooms with unfettered acoustics some troughs can be 10-15 dB down. If a processor tries to correct that it can clip amps and blow speakers. Most processors now will limit the amount of correction they will apply to prevent this from happening, but then you wind up with lumpy response curves. I find it useful to measure the system response with a separate measurement system from the processor. You may be surprised at the results. 

Paula is now working for UMG where they have built a new studio in Santa Monica (mostly for Def Jam records and Dr Dre) and every room is equipped for ATMOS. Many of these early ATMOS rooms are still feeling their way. Some of them don’t sound that great. Sometimes it’s severely compromised speakers used for these extra channels, as tho they can be something different from the mains and "blend". I for one don’t think that’s right, they must all be the same and be extremely consistent off axis or you have nothing but major dips in response via lobing.

Some of the record companies look upon atmos a clever way to squeeze more revenue from an old record they already own from long ago. They are hiring kids to remix the 2 channel into atmos, paying them almost nothing. They are doing it all via plug ins and their computer, and the music creators are NOT HAPPY about it at all. Some think they don’t sound very good or capture the original recording energy- from any perspective.  Some love it.  Some of theses early ATMOS mixes are not mastered- just squirted out and sold on Apple Music as Spatial. There are arguments going on about HOW to master ATMOS and I am witnessing some that as artists or mixers ask what is working.  We helped top Petty's guys jump to ATMOS and it sounds great in the studio but the Apple processing changes some of that.  Brian Lucey has posted here before and he is one that is doing work in ATMOS mastering with some success (and he is not using ATC or PMC).  One of my favorite mastering engineers Emily Lazar is doing great work too, but other very good mastering houses are staying on the sidelines for now. 

Some of the old timers aren’t sure how they feel about ATMOS as some still think it a special effect that works mostly in a binaural type ear bud format for Apple. Some think it’s the passing fad of 5.1. I personally see its best value as a 3 dimensional playback medium but Im certainly not in the majority. I want more mixes that represent actual 3 dimensional events or space, such as a concert hall or a room. Think of hearing it like it really is in Disney Hall, or how it was in a living room with Cowboy Junkies- maybe listen to Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged LIttle Pill" in the real living room they did it in.  This could really open up options for many forms of music, like Americana, Bluegrass, classical, jazz (think Patricia Barber in a club) and so much more.  That part is exciting.

This is a nice video and from 19:00 to 25:00 they talk about mixing in Atmos. Studio C was converted and now they are using it  mostly for Atmos music:

@donavabdear , Movies are an entirely different proposition and usually a very different audience. Things move around in movies and people love hearing that motion in sound. Imagine Thelonious Monk loading his piano onto an F1 car and driving it around the room. 

There is one application for multiple speakers I may delve into. The door to my workshop faces the back of my media room. I had both the system in the shop going along with the main system and was playing some live record, don't remember which one and darn if it didn't create the third dimension. At the listening position the shop system would have been at least 15 dB down from the main one. The audience noise came from all around like a real show and I felt (sounded) as if I were in a much larger room. The shop speakers are about 30 feet from the listening position, the main speakers 12 feet, an 18 foot difference with a delay of about 1.8 msec. If I mounted something like Kef 50's in the back of the room, ran them 15-20 dB down and delayed them 1.8 msec I should get the same effect. I could increase the delay to simulate a larger venue or turn them off entirely for small ones. Will this detract or add to the 2 channel experience? From what I've heard I think It will definitely add to live albums, maybe not studio ones. The only way I'll ever know for sure is to cough up the money and try it. I'll have an extra 2 channels to play with from the DEQX so all I need is a small amp and the speakers. Ambience speakers only made possible with digital processing. 

You can put a line array in a phone booth if you are so inclined. The benefit in a system like mine comes from several traits that tall ESLs have. To have a full range line source in any room the array has to extend from floor to ceiling or it will revert to point source behavior at low frequencies, frequencies with wavelengths longer than the speakers are tall. 100 Hz is ten feet. The problem is that the sound from point source systems decays at the cube of the distance but line sources decay at the square. Line sources project more powerfully. When you walk towards a line source it does not seem to get much louder. Another interesting trait of line sources is they do not radiate above or below the line. Very little energy is sent towards the ceiling and floor. ESLs are dipoles, they radiate very little energy to the sides. Because of all this Line source dipoles cause much less room interaction and the only room treatment I use is behind the speakers. On either side of the screen is floor to ceiling acoustic tile. All of it cost me $89.00. 

Line arrays sound more powerful. It is like adding a turbocharger to your car. They cast a larger more lifelike image. It is like moving from the back of the hall to the front. Between 100 Hz and 18 kHz ESL have at least one magnitude less distortion. Big ESLs will make bass but it really screws up everything else. 100 Hz and down is way better off coming from a sub. The end result is a large powerful image with lightening fast transient response and a level of detail not possible with most other drivers. They never seem stressed. There is never any sibilance. Violins and female voices are totally painless. Because both channels are equalized to have the exact same frequency response curve imaging is excellent. 

I could go on and on. ESLs are not a panacea. Over 40 years I migrated from Acoustat X's, an extremely flawed loudspeaker, through 4 other pairs of ESLs to the system I have now. From the old X's I heard something at low volumes I never heard out of any other system which attracted me to the type. I knew they could be better, much better. It was a matter of getting that sound up to realistic levels. Smaller ESLs, by smaller I mean less than ceiling height can be wonderful as long as they are not played to loudly, the bass is sent to subwoofers and you realize they are only going to sound right at one distance. They have the problem of changing from point source to line source mid stream which creates variations in frequency response with distance. I find this annoying as they loose that dynamic punch as you move away from them. It is a problem all Magneplaner speakers have. They were going to make the 20.7 8 feet tall but the marketing arm shot that down. ESLs are also difficult to match with amplifiers. Most amps will drive them and most amps will not drive the very well. In my experience it take big amps with huge power supplies that can deal with 1 ohm loads and very high current demands at 16 kHz. They have to have enough power to still be able to put out at 20 ohms in the midbass and they have to be able to handle the reactive nature of the load. These requirements make ESLs a more expensive proposition not to mention subwoofer, more amps and a crossover. 

If anyone wants to try upmixing their 2 channel music here are some things to try:

1) For straight upmixing most people agree Auro-3D works great for music.

2) For upmixing 2 channel or 5.1 channel mixes into Atmos or DTS-X an X-Box series S or X has an app you can get that will render ANY content (music or movies) into an Atmos or DTS-X bitstream for your processor. This works better than the upmixers in your processor 99% of the time.

3) If using the Dolby Surround upmixer in your receiver go into settings and turn center spread to ON.

4) If you already have a 5.1 channel system and want to add speakers add wide or height channels before adding surround back.

My personal preference is to add wide channels first but not all receivers offer wide connections.

I have threads here on setting up your system for Atmos and another on Atmos music for more info.

@donavabdear , I never used Room Perfect so maybe DSP is good enough. 

On the other hand, after making the investment in equipment might as well take the time to experiment a little to get it just the way you want. 

Happy New Year!

@mijostyn I very much feel the future is multiple speakers. However when I spend hours listening to surround sound mixes then go back to the 2 channel original it is always the same the 2 channel is better. I don't know why but it is clear 2 channel music is best now. I would say Atmos is best for movies, I don't understand the reason why music now is best in 2 channel and movies are best in multi channel. 

Also dumb question I don't understand using line array speakers in small rooms, I do understand the advantages in efficiency of line arrays but why embrace a phase problem by definition in a small room. I'm sure your speakers sound wonderful I just don't know why someone who is such a careful listener would pick line arrays, this is not a critical note I simply don't know it is my own experience that brings the question I've never seen line arrays in a studio only large room concerts. Thanks

@thespeakerdude , There is no accounting for taste. There is no explanation for it, never will be. Some people prefer to listen to systems that are too bright or have too much bass. A sales technique we use to use was to figure out what the person like to listen to then EQ the equipment we wanted to sell to their preference. I got myself out of the Mid Fi world because of the skullduggery. Having dealt with digital signal processing for 25 years or so it is absolutely possible to tailor a system's amplitude response to make it sound like anything from a tonality perspective. The thing is you can not make a bad system image no matter what digital capability you have. It is the most difficult aspect to get right. You can make a good system image better with digital processing.  My experience with multiple speaker set ups is that they only make things worse. My experience in that regard is extremely limited. It seems throughout modern history the industry has tried over and over to shove multiple speakers and amplifiers down our throats always promising a revolution in sound. The results seem to be that all the serious listener's I know still prefer 2 channel systems. There may be more magic you can perform on the recording side. My knowledge of that part is basic at best. 

@kota1 thanks a lot, do you have any idea how much time and effort

you are about to put me through, ( I knew

that would be the answer) thank you. Merry Christmas

@donavabdear

This is a simple observation by Floyd but it has been a MASSIVE benefit in my room.

An in-ceiling loudspeaker is used as the Voice of God. Others could have replaced some or all of the elevation speakers. But, knowing that the direct sound has a dominant effect on timbre/sound quality I decided not to compromise, and used high quality bookshelf loudspeakers in custom mounts, aiming them at the prime listening location as shown in the following floor plan.

Placing the matching bookshelf speakers at front and rear heights directly above their bed channel counter parts matches timber as Floyd states, they also better time align with the bed channels and in my experience are incredible at pressurizing a room. A perfect way to demo this is get a copy of Kraftwerks The Catalogue concert bluray which has an Atmos mix and can be played in 3D or 2D (3D is AMAZING if you can wangle it but the main thing is the atmos mix). Talk about pressurizing a room at reference volume levels, it will blow your mind. The bookshelfs as height channels have no trouble keeping up, the smaller in ceiling speakers I just don’t see having enough muscle. My heights are active and so the muscle they add to a concert or action movie are OTT. You can achieve the same thing with passive bookshelfs like Floyd did too:

@thespeakerdude 

For all the bluster in the audiophile community for playback, I do not think we have a good handle on what drives people to prefer X over Y.

You will NEVER find what drives "people" by looking for signs in the audiophile community. "People" do not spend $2K+ on speakers like audiophiles. Steve Jobs said people don't know what they want. They would have said faster horses if you asked them before they saw a car. I do not envy your challenge but sincerely look forward to your next invention. The puck is moving toward bundled ACTIVE speakers as far as I can tell.

I think this is one place where artificial intelligence will enter our market.

One of the reasons I like Sony is their DSEE upscaling. My Sony SACD player and my Sony TA-ZH1ES DAC offers it and you can turn it on or off. If you are playing a high rez file it won’t do anything. If you are playing CD quality or lower it upsamples it to highrez. Whether or not you like it is a matter of personal preference. I like it as it is better then the other upsamplers I have tried in my processor or in various DAC’s. Now they have an AI version just as @thespeakerdude mentioned. It is available in their new Signature Series Walkmans. See the link below:

https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/sony_ai/headphone.html

@donavabdear,

For both a speaker and microphone, there are some aspects that cannot be changed with equalization and signal processing. The most predominate is dispersion. This cannot be decoupled from the room though for reproduction, the goal of ATMOS and similar methods is to not only provide a more feature rich reproduction capability, but to dampen the effects of the room. I am a firm believer that even for 2 channel playback, we have not even scratched the surface of what could be done by using more speakers during playback and signal processing.

It is probably people our age dying off or retiring that will bring about some changes in recording. Microphones are picked for their recording pattern and frequency response (tone). There is no reason for the latter any more. It can all be done in post. I remember a presentation on using a microphone array consisting of many microphones with narrower patterns, that were then combined in software. The software could simulate a single microphone of a particular pattern, or provide any number of individual outputs. Is that the future?

In my world, my customers want low distortion, flat on-axis, and smooth predictable off axis, not unlike the Harman research. For recording, mixing, mastering, they can't be second guessing what is in the recording, and what is being enhanced or suppressed due to the playback hardware. For movie/theater sound, they need to know with high confidence how it is going to sound during playback.

For all the bluster in the audiophile community for playback, I do not think we have a good handle on what drives people to prefer X over Y. Hence, while it is useful to discuss sound alteration during playback to suit personal preference, I don't think anyone has a good handle on the controls that would even be offered to the general consumer to provide that tailorable experience. I think this is one place where artificial intelligence will enter our market.

I am sure you are aware there is software to allow studio monitors to simulate other monitors / home systems / cars / etc. We do get customer interest in that area as they assume we could do a better job at it than the present offerings.

Floyd Toole uses the exact same layout in his home (when in doubt copy Floyd I always say) @mijostyn read the article, Floyd uses curtains as absorbers:

@donavabdear , I like DSP for time alignment as the last step. In the Dolby diagram they have the MLP toward the rear. I scotched that and moved my MLP equidistant between the front and rear channels, using a tape measure to dial it into the inch and a laser pointer to get the angles of the height channels aligned. It didn't take that long. I'll post a diagram of Floyd Toole's home layout and he has the exact same layout. So I use the time alignment feature of DSP after using a tape measure and a laser pointer to get the distances and angles as close as possible. For example my room isn't wide enough to have my side surrounds equidistant so DSP in that case is a big help. As for speakers overhead I think for the top middle, it works. For front and rear height, it isn't ideal. No sense having the sweet spot pointed at the floor right? For front and rear height (which are equidistant from MLP) I find facing them toward the MLP and angled about 30 degrees like in this diagram:

@kota1 that is the best set up I've screen, I know you don't want equal angles from front and back as most layouts have. I realize it us much better to have the speakers in the proper physical places but how do you feel about using DSP to time align the speakers? Delay is the easiest DSP action but what about angle in an Atmos configuration? Since panning is object based is it still so important to have the speakers physically in standard positions around your head?

An Atmos version of the same layout (as you see in my virtual system) The angles are key, I moved the top middle ceiling speakers a little more in toward the center of the room to separate them from the surround speakers and between the first and second rows. They also can double as VOG channels for Auro 3D that way. Front and rear height channels are mounted above the front L-R and rear L-R channels and center height above the center for a total of 7 height channels in my layout. I didn’t use active speakers for top middle and center height, too big for my ceiling, but I did use the smaller Paradigm speakers that most closely matched my actives (same tweeters):

When pursuing multi channel the limiting factor tends to be space, space for speakers and space for amps. ACTIVE speakers that house the amps inside resolved that dilemma for me. For anyone wishing to experience unleashed dynamics and realism try this setup with either a processor that does Atmos with wides or DTS-X Pro:

adults typically can’t hear 16khz.

The pursuit of higher and higher resolution files is like chasing rainbows. This is why the law of diminishing returns kicks in hard for two channel purists. Do you know WHY audio shows are full of $50K amps and $100K speakers. That is what it takes to squeeze out the last "bits" of two channel resolution. I am firmly in the camp with Tomlinson Holman who states multi channel offers very great value. I use his Audyssey DSX codec which is channel based, incredible, especially with live recordings. In essence, add WIDE channels to your system BEFORE height channels. Object based Atmos is great but less than 10% of the available music out there is mixed in Atmos. Audyssey DSX is an upmixer:

As Mr Holman is quick to point out, any audio engineer confronted with the question, “what do you want to do with a higher bitrate?”; will always ask for more frequency range and more dynamic range because they don’t know what to do with more channels. "It’s a new paradigm." "Just to go to 192 KHz sampling rate to satisfy passing bats instead of human beings is pretty crazy, but adding channels is of very great value." (For those readers not terribly familiar with flying rodents, bats have an ability to hear ultrasonic frequencies, the kind you can reproduce with a 192 KHz sampling rate). In answer to the question what is 10.2? Mr Holman replies "It is as far as we can push the market without people thinking we are crazy."

… no one could answer except the video guy in the back said he could see the 16k hz audio tone on his monitor. It just showed even in a room full of people who made their living with their ears adults typically can't hear 16khz.

Thank god for the measurement.

@mijostyn i was at a wireless mic workshop and the equipment manufacturer of the new digital transmitters was getting criticized because his microphones didn't transmit over 16k hz. They set this demonstration up in a theater that was rated to 20k hz when the manufacturer said he was playing a 16k hz tone through the transmitter he asked who could hear it, several of the hands of the sound engineers in front slowly went up then quickly more raised there hands as the per pressure behind them grew. Then the manufacturer said oops I forgot to turn on this switch nothing was coming out, hands quickly when down, he said how about now a few hands went up then changed their mind then no hands, he said is this working no one could answer except the video guy in the back said he could see the 16k hz audio tone on his monitor. It just showed even in a room full of people who made their living with their ears adults typically can't hear 16khz.

@mijostyn , I get the level of detail you need because you need of the crossover capability of the DEQX. It must be fun to build the house, build the room, build the speakers, and crack a cold one. Not necessarily in that order. I would never have the patience to go tweeter hunting. If it ain't on Ebay I would just change strategies, good luck.

@kota1 , That wall is on the sunny side of the house. I built the house 30 years ago and all the windows on that side need to be replaced. It was a lot cheaper to cover it over. You would never know there was a window there.

Right at this moment I'm listening to my daughter play a Bach piece on her violin. What a beautiful sound.  

@kota1 , It is great that Anthem makes this kind of gear at a more reasonable price. Their equipment is a real value. Their processor is nowhere near as flexible as the TacT and I am use to that level of flexibility. I did not get the Trinnov because it is not flexible enough. The DEQX Pre 8 can have a similar user interface as the TacT. It also has a 4 way, fully programable crossover. ESLs are essentially wide band midrange drivers. They do not like making low bass or high frequencies above about 18 kHz. Above 12 kHz they can drive amplifiers crazy with the low impedance they present at higher frequencies. Since my hearing falls of at 16 kHz I'm not that interested in what is above 18 kHz. Diverting everything above 12kHz to a Magnepan ribbon tweeter will take a big load off the main amp and allow me more flexibility in adjusting the high end. The problem is getting the tweeters. Magnplanar will not sell them separately. In order to get the tweeters you have to give them the serial number of your speakers. I have to find a store that has 20.7s set up so I can copy the serial numbers:-)