Can't decide between Horizon LCR, or Sierra 2s LR with Horizon C

[yesplease]

Been researching this for months and I still can't come to a decision. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Wife has 86'd towers, so those aren't an option.

Here's the room http://imgur.com/ntuSkps

Denon X4100w, SVS PC-2000 sub in FR corner (may go dual or 1 PB-12 Plus), Axiom QS-8 surrounds.

Option 1: 3 Horizon RAAL, all horizontal. They would all be the same height with the tweeters at ear level. Wall mounted on custom shelves. I can only space them 6" apart and the LR tweeters would be 58" apart.

Option 2: 3 Horizon RAAL, C horizontal, LR vertical with tweeters on the outside. Wall mounted on custom shelves. LR tweeters would be 75" apart.

Option 3: 1 Horizon RAAL, 2 Sierra 2s. Wall mounted on custom shelves. Sierra 2s ports would only be 3-6 inches away from the wall. LR tweeters would be 75" apart.

Plan to crossover the fronts at 60-80hz. I can't move the room around and the layout is pretty much fixed. The Horizons are very attractive to me because of the front ports (so I can mount them flush with the wall) and how they come closer to the tower performance, compared to the 2s.

Use is 100% HT. I think the room is to small for 7.1, so I'm going with 5.1 and the QS8s on the rear wall about 6.5ft high, about 2ft from each corner.

Also, I'm crazy so the TV and main listening position on the middle seat have to be centered in the room.

[Blutarsky]

Sierra-1 speakers with port plugs are another option.

Sometimes SAF and room dictate the choices we need to make.

I am contemplating Axiom QS8 rear surrounds for a new 5.1set up with my Sierra-2 RCLs. They seem to be one of the best possible options.

[curtis]

I am contemplating Axiom QS8 rear surrounds for a new 5.1set up with my Sierra-2 RCLs. They seem to be one of the best possible options.
One thing about the QS8's are they require a fairly high crossover point.

[N Boros]

Yesplease,

Is is possible to move the theater seats closer to the screen? It will make whatever choice of surround speakers perform much better. I had a theater room that was about 12 by 17 feet with 8 foot ceilings. I originally had the TV centered on 17 foot wall and the couch directly opposite with the couch up against the back wall. I even had the QS8s as surrounds on the side walls just a few inches from the back corners. It sounded okay, but after a while I was able to convince my wife to move the TV to the 12 foot wall and not put the couch up against the back wall opposite the TV. We left it more out toward the center of the room. I had probably about 4 feet behind the couch to allow a much better soundfield to develop behind me, from the surround channels. The QS8s as surrounds sounded much better to me in that orientation. This would also open up the possibility of getting direct firing surround speakers like say the HTM 200s, or the CBM 170s, which will better match the sound character of your front speakers. You could get some wall mounts and mount them slightly behind the listening position, but facing each other and they may be okay and not draw attention to themselves, since your room is only about 11 feet across. The QS8s are quite expensive. You get the Sierra 1s on B-stock or if they still have the anniversary sale prices, for about the same price as the QS8s. An added side benefit for moving your seats closer is that you can save money on your display. You can get a smaller TV if you go that route or can save money on your projector screen if you want a projector and still have the same viewing angle.


To answer your original question, I think the three Sierra 2s across the front should be more than fine, since your room is on the smaller side. It also sounds like you can space them out better to get better separation. Positioning the bookshelf speakers better will likely yield better results comparing to non-optimally spaced tower (horizon) speakers.

I guess all of my suggestions will likely save you money! This means you have more money left over for a good display. So you have no excuses not getting something with the best contrast ratio possible. :)

[yesplease]

One thing about the QS8's are they require a fairly high crossover point.

Yea, that's definitely one of my concerns with them. They're rated at 95hz +/-3. The drop-off after that is not too horrible: 85db-80Hz, 82db-70Hz , 78db-60Hz.

My current Paradigm bipoles are tested at 120 Hz +/-2 and Audyssey crosses them over at 90-100Hz. So I'm hoping to get 80-90Hz crossover form the QS8. The professional reviews as well as user feedback on forums is so good, I'd figured it was worth a shot.

Since I'm so close to the side and rear walls, direct firing speakers on the sides or rear walls are just too distracting and localized for me.

N Boros;
Thanks for the feedback! The max I can move the seating away from the wall is 3-3.5' ( I absolutely need to be 10-11' away from the screen to avoid headaches). I'm planning on making some 2x4 temporary stands for the surrounds and move them around to see where the best placement is before running wire in the wall and mounting them.

This is my 5th upgrade in a year so I really need it to be the last (for 5-10 years at least). So any money I try to save now may end up costing me more down the road if I play the what-if game. I really want to get the best possible setup for the room, not taking cost into consideration. If the Sierra-2s with Horizon C are the best possible option, then saving money would a great bonus.

The main issue I have with the fronts, is the limited space along that wall and also the doorway being there. So I can't have the L speaker sticking too far out from the wall and restricting the space when you walk into the room and possibly getting knocked over or hit. Here's how I see the main pros and cons of each option:

Option 1: 3 Horizon RAAL, all horizontal.
PROS: "tower-like" sound without the big towers, front ported so they can be up against wall, several people have done this and are very happy with results, all speakers would be at same height under TV.
CONS: Only 58" apart between L/R tweeters, possibly too much speaker for room size?

Option 2: 3 Horizon RAAL, C horizontal, LR vertical with tweeters on the outside.
PROS: "tower-like" sound without the big towers, front ported so they can be up against wall, LR tweeters would be 75" apart.

CONS: possibly too much speaker for room size? May look bit lopsided having the L/R vertical, with tweeters at ear-level, the tops of L/R would go up around 10" past bottom of the TV (this matters because they would be close to the TV on both sides and it might block some of the screen from off-axis viewing positions)

Option 3: 1 Horizon RAAL, 2 Sierra 2
PROS:, LR tweeters would be 75" apart like option 2, all speakers would be under the TV, wife's first choice.
CONS: Sierra 2s would have to be away from the wall and stick out into the doorway, prob won't be able to put them on wall shelves so they would have to be on stands, lacks dedicated midrange driver and may have a smaller soundstage then options 1-2.

So that's where I'm at right now. I have no clue if:

1. 17" of additional space between L/R tweeters for options 2-3 is even audible or worth any consideration?
2. Whether it's likely I would actually hear a difference between Sierras or Horizons for L/R?

[N Boros]

Option 1: 3 Horizon RAAL, all horizontal.
PROS: "tower-like" sound without the big towers, front ported so they can be up against wall, several people have done this and are very happy with results, all speakers would be at same height under TV.
CONS: Only 58" apart between L/R tweeters, possibly too much speaker for room size?

Option 2: 3 Horizon RAAL, C horizontal, LR vertical with tweeters on the outside.
PROS: "tower-like" sound without the big towers, front ported so they can be up against wall, LR tweeters would be 75" apart.

CONS: possibly too much speaker for room size? May look bit lopsided having the L/R vertical, with tweeters at ear-level, the tops of L/R would go up around 10" past bottom of the TV (this matters because they would be close to the TV on both sides and it might block some of the screen from off-axis viewing positions)

Option 3: 1 Horizon RAAL, 2 Sierra 2
PROS:, LR tweeters would be 75" apart like option 2, all speakers would be under the TV, wife's first choice.
CONS: Sierra 2s would have to be away from the wall and stick out into the doorway, prob won't be able to put them on wall shelves so they would have to be on stands, lacks dedicated midrange driver and may have a smaller soundstage then options 1-2.

So that's where I'm at right now. I have no clue if:

1. 17" of additional space between L/R tweeters for options 2-3 is even audible or worth any consideration?
2. Whether it's likely I would actually hear a difference between Sierras or Horizons for L/R?

I would look at the following thread:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?5931-Slim-Horizon-as-a-near-field-monitor&p=50900&highlight=#post50900

Rob H. has some custom Horizons, that are designed to be used vertically. Just orienting a Horizon speaker with the longer dimension vertically, is not the best idea, since it was designed to be oriented with the longer dimension horizontally. The reason being, that the wider dispersion horizontally is now going to be wider dispersion vertically and the narrower dispersion vertically will now be horizontal.

I suggest that if you want them oriented the other way, then do something like Rob H. and get a custom one designed for that purpose. Although it is going to be quite a bit more expensive. Look carefully about his posts though. The discusses how the difference between the Sierra 2s and his custom Raal Horizons are pretty subtle. He mentioned in another post that he might not even be able to pick out the Raal Horizon if it was a blind test. That was enough for me to be perfectly content with continuing to use my Sierra 2s for my front soundstage. It costs about double the price to get to a horizon or tower with the Raal ribbon tweeter, and I just don't think that I will see anywhere near double the performance increase. Now, if was sitting much further away from my speakers, then I might get to the point where the Sierra towers would make sense, in the need for extra output. But, you and I both don't need the extra output.

[yesplease]

Thanks for the link! That pretty much does it for me. I would be absolutely shocked if I could even tell them apart in my tiny room. The 2k saved can go to adding another sub.

Sierra 2s it is!!!

[N Boros]

Thanks for the link! That pretty much does it for me. I would be absolutely shocked if I could even tell them apart in my tiny room. The 2k saved can go to adding another sub.

Sierra 2s it is!!!

Happy to help. I think you may have saved 2k AND the Sierra 2s might sound better. The Raal Horizons in a compromised placement I am betting would sound worse than properly placed Sierra 2s. I hope you like you new speakers.

[Blutarsky]

One thing about the QS8's are they require a fairly high crossover point.

Thanks Curtis. I think I need bipolar or quad polar surrounds for my intended 5.1 system. I found reviews that the Axiom QS8 could be crossed at 80 hz. I think would work for my S-2s
Does anyone recommend rear onwall or in wall speakers around $1000 per pair. A couple of sources said that timbre matching isn't a big deal for rear surrounds.

My list is Deftec, Martin Logan, Sunfire, Golden Ear MPX....

B.

[curtis]

Thanks Curtis. I think I need bipolar or quad polar surrounds for my intended 5.1 system. I found reviews that the Axiom QS8 could be crossed at 80 hz. I think would work for my S-2s
Does anyone recommend rear onwall or in wall speakers around $1000 per pair. A couple of sources said that timbre matching isn't a big deal for rear surrounds.

According to their own specs, if you cross at 80hz, you will have a hole in the response.

Why do you think you need bi/quad-polars for surrounds?

While timbre matching surrounds may not be as crucial as the front stage, once you have timbre matching all the way around, you will think otherwise.

You are paying good money, and made an effort to have an excellent front stage...I would try and get close timbre matching.

Have you tried the HTM-200SE?

[Blutarsky]

Thanks for pointing this out. I am finding out that I should use rear bipolar, or other more diffuse speakers for a 5.1 rear wall system. I theoretically agree.
In wall or flush mount would be a big bonus. I wish more speaker manufacturers would provide frequency graphs.

[yesplease]

According to their own specs, if you cross at 80hz, you will have a hole in the response.

Why do you think you need bi/quad-polars for surrounds?


Not necessarily due to room gain, right? Also, they are very close to the listening position so they won't be pushed near their limits and room EQ like Audessey should have no problem compensating for a dip like that from 95-80hz.

Bipoles/dipoles/quadpoles are very useful when there's not adequate distance for monopole speaker placement and they end up being distracting rather then enveloping.Yes, if there's room, every speaker should be a matched monopole.

[curtis]

The notion of needing diffused sound from surrounds comes from before surrounds were discrete channels.

With discrete channels and direct/monopoles, if the sound mixer/engineer wants a diffused sound, he/she could create it. The converse is not true with bi/quad polar speakers...you will never get direct sound when it's called for.

Most surround mixing/engineering is done with direct radiating speakers.

Jusr my thoughts. I haven't experienced your room/system.

[Blutarsky]

I have read on several sources and from a speaker designer friend, that 5.1 systems with the surrounds on the rear wall, work better with Bi/quad polar speakers, with this reasoning:

In an ideal 5.1 system the direct surrounds are on the sides and will provide "surround" effects. In the rear placement the direct radiating speakers can have beaming that creates anomalous effects. The diffuse sounds of a bipolar has more of an ambient effect with less surround sensation. An acceptable compromise from the ideal.

Now, all this will be better than my current room with ceiling speakers in the wrong place. Put there by the idiot who worked for the home builder (All four surrounds in front of my seating position).

A big also is the SAF. When offered options the S. greatly prefers the flush mount Bi/Quad speakers.

The Golden Ear Invisa MPX in-walls are in the running (scroll down) I have contacted Golden Ear for a frequency graph. The grills can be painted to match.
http://www.goldenear.com/products/invisa-series

Thanks for sharing your time.
B.

[N Boros]

According to their own specs, if you cross at 80hz, you will have a hole in the response.

Why do you think you need bi/quad-polars for surrounds?

While timbre matching surrounds may not be as crucial as the front stage, once you have timbre matching all the way around, you will think otherwise.

You are paying good money, and made an effort to have an excellent front stage...I would try and get close timbre matching.

Have you tried the HTM-200SE?

I agree with Curtis here. The HTM-200se's might just work well for your purposes. They are wall mountable, just like the QS8's and will better timbre match the front speakers.

However, if he does decide to go with the QS8's I think he will be fine with an 80 to 90 Hz crossover though. I owned them several years ago and had them crossed over at 80 Hz (since my receiver only had a global crossover) and didn't notice a hole in the response. I didn't run bass sweeps or measure it or anything. But nothing really jumped out at me. I think that since most people will wall mount the QS8's, they will get some boundary reinforcement that does nicely extend the lower end response just a bit to either get rid of the hole in the response, or make it small enough that it really is not noticeable. Just going off of the anechoic measurements it should only be a small hole anyways.

[yesplease]

On another note, gonna replace the PC-2000 with a Submersive F2!! Especially with room gain in my tiny room, should give me insane lower frequency performance down to the single digits without breaking a sweat.

[N Boros]

On another note, gonna replace the PC-2000 with a Submersive F2!! Especially with room gain in my tiny room, should give me insane lower frequency performance down to the single digits without breaking a sweat.

Don't you have basically an 11' by 14' sealed room? If that is the case, then Submersive is overkill for your room. You might be able to achieve the same results will a much lesser expensive pair of subs that are also quite a bit smaller. Putting aside how there is not a whole lot of content below 20 Hz, if you really want to get extension down into the single digits you might just get some of the lesser expensive sealed subs from either Rythmik, SVS or Powersound audio. The fact that you could get a small sealed sub to work well in your room, seems like it would be something to factor in, since you don't have a lot of extra room. I would guess that in that small of a theater, that if you find a sealed sub that extends down flat to around 40 Hz, then the room gain will fill in the gradual roll-off to where it does extend down flat to quite far below 20 Hz. All that you need to make sure of is that the pair of subs you choose has enough headroom in your room. The Powersound audio XS15se for only $800 each should easily give you more than enough headroom. The SVS SB13 Ultra for about double the price, if you wanted a nicer finish, should as well. Look at the specs of them on data-bass (http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=systems&type=0 ). The sealed Rythimks with 15 inch drivers could easily do this as well. All of these would be lesser expensive options that are quite a bit smaller than the Submersive sub.

[yesplease]

Don't you have basically an 11' by 14' sealed room? If that is the case, then Submersive is overkill for your room.

Tell that to the guys who have 2 of these beasts in rooms smaller than mine :cool:

First off, let me say that I'm a bassaholic and I usually watch movies at -5 to -6db with the sub running 4-5db hot. I'm also a believer in "better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it."



Putting aside how there is not a whole lot of content below 20 Hz,
For the kind of movies that I usually watch (action/adventure), there's tons movies with scenes that have awesome <20hz content. Just a few that I've watched in the past couple of weeks: War of the Worlds, first Avengers (2nd one had an awful LFE track), Minority Report, Transformers.

Many times hearing/feeling those <20hz scenes are my favorite parts of the movie. So I need excellent low frequency performance with the ability to hit peaks of 105-110db at <20hz with very low distortion(the F2 has crazy-low distortion levels, even when pushed hard).

After spending 100+ hours researching and talking to people at the subwoofer companies (from regular techs to the designer of the sub), no other sealed sub, or combination of 2 sealed subs under $2000-$2300, will fit my needs. Here's why:

1. Output: No 2 sealed subs (even colocated which wouldn't be an option for me) would give me as much output at low frequencies as a single F2. Let's take the SB-13 Ultra because it's the size I need: CEA 2010: 83db at 10hz, 92db at 16hz, and 96db at 20hz, and that's pushing the sub to the limit. Room gain is not going to give me 10-20dbs so even if I get 2 of them, that would only add 2-3dbs(colocated would only add 5-6dbs) at a cost of $3200.

2. Size: The F2 is only 16" deep x 24" wide. That depth of only 16" is insane and gives me exactly what I need for my small room. It could go vertically in the FR corner, horizontally under the TV, vertically or horizontally on either side wall, vertically or horizontally on the back. All of those positions are good options without sticking it out into the room and being obtrusive like most subwoofers, cylinders excluded.

3. 1 dual sub with stacked drivers, works better for me than 2 single subs, or 1 sub with opposed drivers: Nearfield placement really bothers me and I hate it. I'm betting the F2 will work very well in either of the 2 positions on the front wall. If not I can move it along one of the side walls and it should work and be far enough away from me.

Subs with opposed drivers are much much larger in the depth dimension than the F2.

Dual subs from Rythmik, Hsu, SVS or Powersouny audio, would be much harder to place and take up more floorspace than the F2. Also, they still would not be able to get close to the lower range output from the F2.

4. Value: The F2 with a used 1000 watt amp is only $1650 + shipping $100-$200. IMHO, this is an exceptional value and a chance to get one of the best subwoofers in the world for the price of $1650 + shipping is awesome (IMHO).

There is no need for me to get it with the 2400watt or 4000watt amp. Even with the original 1000 watt amp, I should have lots of headroom.

5. Looks: This one is really subjective, but I think it's one of the best looking subwoofers under $5000. My wife also agrees, "it looks pretty with the rounded edges". I think it would also look terrific on it's side under the TV.

6. Made in US, vs China for most of the other options. Not really a big deal, but it's definitely a plus for me.

So the bottom line is that it fits my needs perfectly with exceptional performance, flexibility, value, and WAF.

[N Boros]

4. Value: The F2 with a used 1000 watt amp is only $1650 + shipping $100-$200. IMHO, this is an exceptional value and a chance to get one of the best subwoofers in the world for the price of $1650 + shipping is awesome (IMHO).

There is no need for me to get it with the 2400watt or 4000watt amp. Even with the original 1000 watt amp, I should have lots of headroom.


Okay this makes a little more sense now. I thought you were going for the 2400 or 4000 Watt versions which are over $2000 and kept thinking of the size of your small room. $1600 is a great price for that sub, with those output capabilities. Just be a little careful about what some Bassheads at AVS say. For example I remember a recent thread with one guy who built 8,10, or 12 massive DIY subs with 18" drivers and many amplifiers with thousands of watts of power driving each one bragging about how he enjoys hitting 125dB, 130dB, 135dB. I remember commenting that he is likely doing hearing damage. Yet he and other similar folks are often the ones that are very vocal about how much subwoofer is needed for different people in different applications.

It sounds like you did you homework though, so I'm sure you will have excellent bass response in your room. I too am a basshead and really can't wait to get a couple of Rythmik FV15HPs for my room. I have a much larger 6500 cubic foot space to pressurize though, which is why I want these massive subs.

[yesplease]

Yea, some of those guys are insane. Thankfully, I'm not as crazy as them. Hearing loss and angry neighbours is not on my todo list. I just want nice clean and tight bass that will blend well with the fronts and be loud enough all the way down to 10-5hz.

That Rhythmic sub was my choice if I went ported. It's an exceptional performer and great bang for the buck. I wish that Data Bass had tested the current version with the new amp (and driver?).

[N Boros]

That Rhythmic sub was my choice if I went ported. It's an exceptional performer and great bang for the buck. I wish that Data Bass had tested the current version with the new amp (and driver?).

I thought I read somewhere that the new amp and I think driver was able to yield 2 or 3 dB more output throughout the frequency response band. But, the new FVX15 is said to have 2 or 3 dB less output than the FV15Hp, which means that the new sub would have about the same as the sub that Josh Ricci measured a few years ago for a cheaper price. That's if what I remember reading somewhere is correct.

I figured I would share this with another basshead:

http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=115&mset=127

If that Seaton sub doesn't work out maybe you can build this 24" sealed sub. I think this should have enough clean output for you. :)

[yesplease]

NBoros,

When you moved your couch away from the wall, did you leave the QS8s on the side walls behind the listening position? Or where they on the back wall?

I may not have time to listen to the whole setup with the qs8s before their return period expires. Right now, having an Ascend model as direct firing surrounds on the side walls about a foot from the rear corner, 6.5-7ft up, facing each other is sounding like an option.

[yesplease]

Also considering these: http://www.svsound.com/speakers/ultra-surround

They are expensive. However, they are very high quality with lots of flexibility:

Bipole - both sets of drivers in phase.
Dipole mode - both sets of drivers out of phase.
Duet mode - each set of drivers receives a discrete signal. For 7.1 with only 2 speakers.
58 Hz-32 kHz (+/-3 dB)
18 lbs each.

[N Boros]

NBoros,

When you moved your couch away from the wall, did you leave the QS8s on the side walls behind the listening position? Or where they on the back wall?

I may not have time to listen to the whole setup with the qs8s before their return period expires. Right now, having an Ascend model as direct firing surrounds on the side walls about a foot from the rear corner, 6.5-7ft up, facing each other is sounding like an option.

I moved them to the side walls. The side surrounds should be to the side of you if at all possible. It was much more enveloping than when my couch was up against the back wall. I had them slightly behind the listening position too.

[yesplease]

Edited: Reset AVR and reran Audyssey and got a crossover of 90hz for the QS8s. That's good enough for me.

[yesplease]

Wow! I've spent the last 6 months and many hundreds of hours working on my system. Mainly, researching and A/B testing different placement options, speakers and receivers. Just reread this thread and I can't believe some of the awful ideas that I had.

Short Version (all IMHO with ascend speakers in my room(s), of course)

1. Ended up going with a 5.2.4 setup: RAAL towers, Horizon RAAL, HTM-200se for surrounds and tops, 2 SVS SB13 subs, Arcam AVR550 receiver, Anthem MCA 325 amp for fronts, Onkyo 2 channel amps for tops.

2. Among other things, Audyssey XT32 destroyed the lower bass, center channel and front soundstage in my room(and don't get me started on the awfulness of Dynamic EQ boosting the surrounds and atmos speakers making them too prominent and totally ruining the balance with the fronts). I will never use it again. And this is after reading hundreds of pages worth of tips and tech from multiple forums and trying every mic placement combo I could find with 3 different receivers (4100, 4200, 6200) in multiple rooms. I have to re-watch so many movies again to hear what I missed.

3. Anthem ARC is very good and so much better then Audyssey, it’s not even a contest. But Dirac Live is definitely better and the results in my room have been nothing short of amazing. What it does for the clarity from the center channel and the front soundstage is some sort of witchcraft and it really does sound like the lifting of a veil. During my A/B testing, using the same scenes that I’ve watched 40+ times already, it was like hearing them for the first time. And the ability to set your own target curves quickly and easily is great. The house curve (default) has worked really well for me so far.

If you’ve never tried Dirac, you have no idea what you could be missing. I didn’t want to believe it at first, so I did 25+ hours of testing including over 3 weeks including blind tests and getting the opinions of normal non-crazy people. It really was shocking for both me and the normals. And all of this is in a former bedroom with 2 medium and 1 large window and no acoustic treatment. I also cannot place the seating in the best location for sound, which is 18" forward of the current location, because I need to be further away from the TV then most people.

Another benefit is you may actually want to listen at a lower level because everything is so clear and the sound is no lounger muffled and the soundstage sounds so much bigger. I was listening at -5 to -7db and even reference level for some quieter movies. Now, I’m at -10 to -12 for most movies.

4. Me before:"Diffuse surround sound is good!" Yea, no... it's not. I will never use a bipole/dipole/tripole/quadpole speaker ever again. It was a night and day difference for me. Now, when I hear diffuse sound it's actually more distracting because it sounds different (muffled or obscured) then the rest of the sound I'm hearing from the fronts. It also clearly ruined the directional sound cues that correlate with the actions on the screen.

5. I cannot say enough good things about the Horizon with RAAL (and the towers as well). It is the least “speaker sounding” speaker I’ve ever heard. It’s like the voices and instruments are there in the room. Hearing it and the towers for the first time was an experience I will never forget. I haven't heard a speaker that I clearly prefer over it and I can't imagine getting any more satisfaction then I do from this speaker.

6. Atmos, done right, is 100% worth the trouble. Don’t worry about the lack of encoded Atmos content. The upmixer does a fantastic job. The planes, helicopters, rain etc being overhead is really fantastic, but something unexpected that I really enjoy is the background music effects coming from the tops as well. It really adds some great ambience to the scene. For me, sound from the top is the final piece of the puzzle to create that immersive effect during the movie.

7. Properly placed 5.1.4 is soooo much better then poorly placed 7.1.4. Also, don’t be afraid to put the surrounds higher then ear level if there are going to be obstructions like seat backs and heads in the way. I was lucky enough that 12” above ear level gave a direct line of sight to the speakers and was right at Dolby’s “don’t go above half the room’s height” recommendation. It makes no sense to have bad surround coverage just to meet Atmos specs.

8. I also recommend building some stands for atmos speaker location testing. I used 8’ adjustable height tripod speaker stands with a 2x4 across them. These are the stands made for pro speakers on a stage. I then attached the speakers to the 2x4s. This was very useful before making permanent holes in the ceiling. For me, the distance of the speaker from the listening position had a big effect on the sound bubble and whether or not they were overpowering, or had almost no effect. Both my fronts and backs sounded best being much closer to the minimum angles then the max. Front to back/back to front panning is also still very good without having a lot of distance between them.

I spent so much time researching and testing that I could go on about this for pages and pages, so just let me know if you need more detail or clarification.

[Todd WI]

That's an impressive system! I'd be interested in hearing more about your Dirac setup. That is through the Arcam, right? I was initially confused because of the external amps which lead me to think you had a MiniDSP DDRC-88A in there somewhere. Was the setup process similar to Audyssey? Does the Arcam allow you to modify the house curve?

Todd

[sludgeogre]

Fantastic write up, yesplease!!! I currently have a 5.2 setup and went with a Marantz AV7701 for my pre/pro (700 bucks on Accessories 4 Less). The AV7702 was 300 bucks more, but I decided I wouldn't be going for atmos any time soon and I didn't think I would need the extra subwoofer EQ because of how fantastic my Rythmik F12's would sound. Well, I was right about the subs (they sound fantastic), but Audyssey XT is pretty darn lacking, and people say XT32 is so much better. Well, this has put the last nail in the coffin for Audyssey for me. I'm really not impressed with the results at all and it's good to know that XT32 isn't much better.

I was thinking of getting the MiniDSP-88A to add Dirac capabilities to my system, but man, now I'm thinking that saving up for an Arcam, or waiting for Emotiva to release a processor with atmos capabilities. It looks like the immersive audio scene is really getting good enough to finally invest in, especially with Dirac making it's way into more and more products.

Great information here, thanks for writing this. I agree that the Sierra Towers and Horizon with RAALs are incredible. Mine have brought me a great amount of joy and I can't wait to get a better room to put them in and better room correction software and acoustic treatments.

[N Boros]

Well, I was right about the subs (they sound fantastic), but Audyssey XT is pretty darn lacking, and people say XT32 is so much better. Well, this has put the last nail in the coffin for Audyssey for me. I'm really not impressed with the results at all and it's good to know that XT32 isn't much better.

I think that Audyssey is very much room dependent. Here are some of the results I have had with Audyssey MultiEqXT on my Onkyo 805. Several years ago I was living in a house where my home theater was set up in my living room, that was quite small, only about 12x17X8, with thick carpet, heavy drapes and stuffed furniture that was almost too much for such a small room. When I ran Audyssey several times, I was pretty underwhelmed, to where I didn't really hear much difference at all.
When I moved to a rental house for about a year I didn't even want to bother with Audyssey, since I didn't think it would do much. In the rental house I was in a very different room, a huge open basement. Bass from my Outlaw LFM1 subwoofer was underwhelming and dialog was sometimes unclear.

Having moved to another more permanent house, I again have my home theater in a large open basement, close to 10,000 cubic feet it is open to, even though it is finished and divided into rooms. After a couple of years I figured I would give Audyssey a try. Before running it I experimented with different subwoofer placements that were near a corner, to bring some life back into the sub in this enormous space. I wanted to get it close to the corner, where large peaks are okay, but not really any big nulls. Then I ran Audyssey and played with the 0/180 phase switch on the sub. I was shocked at the difference Audyssey made to the sound. While it wasn't able to completely pull down a peak at 65 Hz and 130 Hz (I am guessing that this is a room mode), the bass region from 100 Hz down to 20 Hz is quite flat, checking with sweeps. Also, it seems like my surround setup came to life. The soundstage got larger. I am hearing subtle details that I didn't hear before in soundtracks I am familiar with. Everything sounds balanced now. Also, the 0/180 switch on my sub made a huge difference! Before, there was a big null from 70 to 85Hz, which went away by just flipping the switch and rerunning Audyssey. I checked with sweeps and the null didn't just move, and I didn't get an new peaks, it just kind of fixed the problem.

I bet MultEqXT32 with SubEq with its higher resolution filters would have done an even better job pulling down some of those peaks missed by MultEqXT. When I upgrade to a couple of more capable subs for my huge space I plan to get a receiver with this more advanced version of Audyssey or possibly Dirac. Though my current sub can't pressurize, my huge space, Audyssey helped be bring it to life while I am waiting for the bigger subs.

I'm thinking about putting up a wall to get the size of the theater area down and to give me more of a predictable, well studied rectangular room. Also, I will likely play around with absorption and diffusion panels. But, I was shocked at the difference that Audyssey MultEqXT made in my current setup, when it is really just supposed to be a cherry on top, after getting everything else right. If Dirac can improve things even further, then I will definitely keep it in mind for when I upgrade my receiver in the future. But, I wouldn't just write off Audyssey altogether.


P.S. Excellent writeup Yesplease.

[sludgeogre]

Indeed, the room counts for a lot and the room I have right now is terrible. Vaulted ceiling, open room, untreated walls, sliding glass door, it's not good. Audyssey helped me get my distances and levels right, but I don't notice any difference with having it engaged for room correction. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the room.

The other thing is that my subs are fully capable of pressurizing most of the room, but there's a big null right at the listening position because the sofa is about halfway in the big open room. I can't move it forward or back at all, so it really sucks. I'll be moving in 6 months or so and I can't wait to have a dedicated 14x19 room for my theater. I am hoping that Audyssey Mult EQXT has a better impact in that room and gives me some more vertical dispersion and vocal clarity.

[yesplease]

That's an impressive system! I'd be interested in hearing more about your Dirac setup. That is through the Arcam, right? I was initially confused because of the external amps which lead me to think you had a MiniDSP DDRC-88A in there somewhere. Was the setup process similar to Audyssey? Does the Arcam allow you to modify the house curve?

Todd

Yes, it's the full version of Dirac Live that comes with the Arcam so you can do anything like modify any target curves, group speakers together to be eq'ed the same, and adjust curtains (frequency range to start/stop eq) for each speaker . You really can "have it your way" whether you like your frequency response to look like a mountain range, or flat as a ruler.

The process is very different then Audyssey. The software is run on a Mac or PC. The microphone plugs into your computer and it connects to the AVR through your network. Then, the calculations are made with a combination of your computer and Dirac's servers. You should use the Umik-1 to take the measurements as it's Dirac's recommended mic. If you're crazy like me, you would get one from Cross Spectrum Labs that's been calibrated down to 5hz vs 20hz for the standard one. Compare that to the toy mic that Audessey uses and their dependence on the little processing power of the AVR to create the filters.

I went with the Arcam because it's the only reasonably priced AV receiver with both Dirac and Atmos. I also like their approach of just focusing on audio quality above anything else, instead of adding 100 features that no one really uses. It has a massive and very heavy toroidal transformer and 2 big 15,000uf capacitors (in addition to a bunch of smaller capacitors).

They also list all 7 channels driven (with extremely low distortion) as a spec, which is virtually unheard of for an AVR. They don't put any filters in the signal path like Denon, Yamaha and the rest of them. So you'll get the little speaker pops when the audio signal is first received. No big deal for me.

The two units have only been out for a few months and there have been some bugs. I'm not concerned at all because the warranty is 5 years. They're also working on a firmware update to add Dirac to the height channels. Right now it only sets the delays and levels for them. I've also been told that they're working to add a second slot for Dirac in the receiver. This allows you to load and then switch between 2 completely different calibrations at any time.

Even though the Arcam is probably more then enough, I power the fronts with a external amp for a number of reasons: 1. Because I'm a huge fan of overkill and never want my equipment to get close to its limits 2. I'll keep it hopefully for 10-20 years 3. I want a lot of headroom because I listen fairly loud and it may also be needed when Dirac is boosting a large dip (5-10db).

I went with an Anthem amp after comparing and researching options for a long time. I liked that it has really good specs along with terrific performance, is made in Canada, uses high quality components and capacitors, is an excellent design, has extremely good build quality, it also looks nice both inside and out imho, and it has been certified for safety and performance by an independent laboratory, unlike Emotiva and some other manufacturers that have zero safety/performance certifications. I know most people probably don't care about UL or equivalent listings, but I do, especially on products in my home that get hot and can pull 1500 watts. $10 electrical products are UL listed, there's simply no excuse for not getting the certification.

[monkuboy]

A +1 for Dirac. I paid an extra $99 for the full version to use with my XMC-1 and it works very, very well. My only other experience with room correction has been Audyssey, in a couple of Onkyo AVR's from several years ago and never again will I ever use that. It made everything sound worse. I feel sorry for anyone who uses it and lets it mess up their system then they sit there and keep it because they think that's how the system is supposed to sound. Dirac is a far superior method, at least based on my experiences.

[yesplease]

A +1 for Dirac. I paid an extra $99 for the full version to use with my XMC-1 and it works very, very well. My only other experience with room correction has been Audyssey, in a couple of Onkyo AVR's from several years ago and never again will I ever use that. It made everything sound worse. I feel sorry for anyone who uses it and lets it mess up their system then they sit there and keep it because they think that's how the system is supposed to sound. Dirac is a far superior method, at least based on my experiences.

I'm actually pissed off at myself for sticking with Audyssey for as long as I did. I started reading about Dirac at least a couple years ago and I always thought to myself that it was all hype.

[curtis]

I'm using Trinnov now, but will go with Dirac when the time comes for a new pre/pro.

I'd like to stay with Trinnov, but it will be too expensive.

[sludgeogre]

I'm using Trinnov now, but will go with Dirac when the time comes for a new pre/pro.

I'd like to stay with Trinnov, but it will be too expensive.

Never heard of Trinnov before, then I looked them up, looked fascinating, googled some prices and HOLY MOTHER OF **** those things better sound incredible.

[curtis]

Never heard of Trinnov before, then I looked them up, looked fascinating, googled some prices and HOLY MOTHER OF **** those things better sound incredible.
Yeah...tell me about it!
I bought a Sherwood/Newcastle's R972 AVR with Trinnov...it was S/N and Trinnov's attempt to bring the Trinnov correction system into the mainstream. It started out very buggy, but overtime they ironed out most of the issues. By that time, Audessey had taken hold, and integrating Trinnov into a receiver proved costly, and they abandoned the effort. It was a $2K receiver when it debuted...I think in 2008-2009...but in the end, they started liquidating them...I got mine for $600, and refurb unit got all the way down to $300.

Not only does Trinnov do room EQ, which it does wonderfully, it also corrects for speaker placement in 2D/3D according to ITU standards...standards on how speakers should be placed in a recording studio.

Even though my speaker placement in my room is pretty good, the sound is even more enveloping with Trinnov. For EQuing, I have it setup to EQ the sound from 300hz down...it is wonderful!

Now, you can't get Trinnov for under $20K...so when I decide to go to 4K or Atmos...or any new codec...or when this thing breaks down...I'm hosed.

I don't have any direct comparison with Dirac...but I am told it is the next best thing, but it won't do the placement correction.

[yesplease]

Never heard of Trinnov before, then I looked them up, looked fascinating, googled some prices and HOLY MOTHER OF **** those things better sound incredible.

Yes, they are absolutely worth it for the theater rooms that use them. The number one thing is the speaker mapping and every single aspect of the system is customizable.

Dirac is definitely the next best thing and Datasat, which has similar pricing to Trinnov, uses Dirac. I think Trinnov would definitely be a waste in a room like mine.

[curtis]

Dirac is definitely the next best thing and Datasat, which has similar pricing to Trinnov, uses Dirac. I think Trinnov would definitely be a waste in a room like mine.
I have heard Trinnov in a few different rooms...if you have the funds, I don't think it is a waste of money.

[yesplease]

I have heard Trinnov in a few different rooms...if you have the funds, I don't think it is a waste of money.

I'm not saying it wouldn't sound terrific, I'm saying spending $25k+ to put a 32 channel processor in a 1000 cubic foot room would, imho, not be a wise use of resources. Just like trying to put a 350 small block on a bicycle.

One of the main reasons to get the unit is the speaker remapping and huge number of channels. All of the speakers in my room are properly placed, so I really wouldn't need the remapping. I could, at the very most, fit 2 more ceiling speakers and 2 front heights, that's it. So I would spend almost 10x as much and get 4 more speakers.

Now if I had a nice big room where I could put 12 tops, 2 wides, 4 heights and 2 rears, and $25k burning a hole in my pocket, I would do it in a heartbeat.

[curtis]

I'm not saying it wouldn't sound terrific, I'm saying spending $25k+ to put a 32 channel processor in a 1000 cubic foot room would, imho, not be a wise use of resources. Just like trying to put a 350 small block on a bicycle.

One of the main reasons to get the unit is the speaker remapping and huge number of channels. All of the speakers in my room are properly placed, so I really wouldn't need the remapping. I could, at the very most, fit 2 more ceiling speakers and 2 front heights, that's it. So I would spend almost 10x as much and get 4 more speakers.

Now if I had a nice big room where I could put 12 tops, 2 wides, 4 heights and 2 rears, and $25k burning a hole in my pocket, I would do it in a heartbeat.
The cost is a HUGE factor...agreed. Absolutely a value judgement. I will not have the funds when I need a new pre/pro...unless I hit the lottery or something.
The systems where I have heard Trinnov is in smaller rooms. The speakers in my room...5.1...with almost ideal placement. It made a noticeable difference in these rooms.

[sludgeogre]

It certainly sounds like an incredible system, but certainly geared for ultra-high end, massive rooms and/or ultra high-end theaters for professionals (perhaps). My new house will have a 14x19 room, and I'm never going beyond 5.2.4 or 7.2.4 at the most and I'm really happy with 5.2 for right now.

I got my Marantz AV7701 on Accessories 4 Less for 700 bucks, but if that Trinnov unit that Curtis has was around when I was looking I definitely would have gotten that.

I'm either going to wait for Emotiva to release a processor with balanced outputs and Dirac with a full Atmos setup, or I'll just get the MiniDSP 8 channel dirac processor and stick with 5.2 or maybe 7.2.

Can't make up my mind, but the stuff I'm reading from guys that have Atmos upscaling turned on are totally loving it.

[curtis]

The Arcam looks VERY interesting. Arcam usually isn't on my radar...but it is now.

[Todd WI]

The Arcam looks VERY interesting. Arcam usually isn't on my radar...but it is now.

Mine too. Thanks Yesplease for all the information!

[N Boros]

Just saw an article today that Dirac is coming to Pioneer receivers:

https://www.audioholics.com/av-news/pioneer-dirac-partnership

Prior to this announcement, getting Dirac in your system was quite expensive. Either with a mini DSP on top of a receiver or prepro with seperate amps, or an Emotiva prepro (no immersive audio yet) where you again need seperate amps or the Arcam receiver mentioned. When I upgrade my receiver I am only interested in immersive audio, probably 7.1.4, uhd hdmi and hdcp specs for high dynamic range and some good room eq. Maybe in a year or two Pioneer with have all of this at a reasonable price with Dirac. Here's hoping.

[yesplease]

Just saw an article today that Dirac is coming to Pioneer receivers:

https://www.audioholics.com/av-news/pioneer-dirac-partnership

Prior to this announcement, getting Dirac in your system was quite expensive. Either with a mini DSP on top of a receiver or prepro with seperate amps, or an Emotiva prepro (no immersive audio yet) where you again need seperate amps or the Arcam receiver mentioned. When I upgrade my receiver I am only interested in immersive audio, probably 7.1.4, uhd hdmi and hdcp specs for high dynamic range and some good room eq. Maybe in a year or two Pioneer with have all of this at a reasonable price with Dirac. Here's hoping.

Nice! It's great to see Dirac getting into more mainstream receivers at lower price points. If they were smart, they'd also put it the Onkyo receivers.

[N Boros]

Nice! It's great to see Dirac getting into more mainstream receivers at lower price points. If they were smart, they'd also put it the Onkyo receivers.

That is a big if. What has been going on over at Onkyo (who now owns Pioneer's receiver line) has not been too smart, lately. I own two older Onkyo receivers and love them. They were very competitive for price and performance ratio at the time. I hope they do come back around by putting in Dirac, with 7.1.4 immersive audio and everything necessary for 4k with HDR. Everything else like ridiculously overbuilt DACs (384 kHz/32 bit, yet no decent room EQ !?), etc. they can leave out to get a competitive price.

[sludgeogre]

Onkyo receivers have become bargain-basement designs that just have all of the new buzz words with the lowest possible cost parts. I bought one a couple years ago and it fried on me in 3 months and it sounded terrible the whole time. I was very unimpressed, and it's the device that got me into this hobby, because I knew that I was getting screwed and I wanted good sound finally.

[yesplease]

One more thing about my Atmos placement testing, I did try using only 2 speakers (TM position) and it was pretty bad for me. The biggest issue was having the 2 speakers so close to the LP. It was very distracting for me and felt unbalanced.

Also, the panning effects from back to front/front to back sounded small and were just lacking something. It didn't have the same effect as 4 speakers where the plane (or whatever) flew across the whole room and comes right at you before going over your head. It was more of an effect that was above you briefly and then just went away or ended at the lower surrounds.

I was surprised at how much you can really hear the directional sound work it's way through the top speakers to the front speakers, or vice versa. Of course once you stop just paying attention to it and watch the movie, it blends seamlessly with the rest of the speakers.

So I would definitely recommend going with 4 ceiling speakers.

[Todd WI]

Hey yesplease,

What is your impression of the HTM-200s as surrounds? Are there Sierra Sats in your future or do the 200s match your fronts well enough to not move up?

While I really like the idea of Having RAALs all around by adding Sierra Sats to my existing Sierra 2 fronts, the reality of limited funds chasing multiple things has me considering the 200s for surrounds.

[curtis]

Hey yesplease,

What is your impression of the HTM-200s as surrounds? Are there Sierra Sats in your future or do the 200s match your fronts well enough to not move up?

While I really like the idea of Having RAALs all around by adding Sierra Sats to my existing Sierra 2 fronts, the reality of limited funds chasing multiple things has me considering the 200s for surrounds.
I'm not yesplease, but I am very happy with the HTM-200SE as surrounds with my Sierra-2 LCR.

That said, I will go to Sierra Sats when funds permit. Until that happens, I am not un-happy and not in a hurry.

[yesplease]

Hey yesplease,

What is your impression of the HTM-200s as surrounds? Are there Sierra Sats in your future or do the 200s match your fronts well enough to not move up?

While I really like the idea of Having RAALs all around by adding Sierra Sats to my existing Sierra 2 fronts, the reality of limited funds chasing multiple things has me considering the 200s for surrounds.

Yes, they are more then good enough for surrounds and atmos. For movies, I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference with double blind testing. Remember, it is very rare for you to get any voices out them (like Gravity) that could make the small difference audibly noticeable.

IMHO, replacing surround and rear HTMs with the Sierra Sat. for movies, is more of a want or mental thing (like wanting massive amps with efficient & easy to drive speakers :-) rather then an actual performance need. I can cross all of mine at 60-80hz.

The 200s are terrific and really underpriced. Also, I probably wouldn't use a ribbon tweeter for the atmos speakers due to their limited vertical dispersion.

But then again, I'm craving some more 220wpc Anthem amps so I can have a matching set. 100% unnecessary.

[Todd WI]

Thanks for the info guys!

I just ordered a pair of 200s to use for surrounds (at least for now).

[sludgeogre]

Yes, they are more then good enough for surrounds and atmos. For movies, I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference with double blind testing. Remember, it is very rare for you to get any voices out them (like Gravity) that could make the small difference audibly noticeable.

IMHO, replacing surround and rear HTMs with the Sierra Sat. for movies, is more of a want or mental thing (like wanting massive amps with efficient & easy to drive speakers :-) rather then an actual performance need. I can cross all of mine at 60-80hz.

The 200s are terrific and really underpriced. Also, I probably wouldn't use a ribbon tweeter for the atmos speakers due to their limited vertical dispersion.

But then again, I'm craving some more 220wpc Anthem amps so I can have a matching set. 100% unnecessary.

This is great to know. I know I'm going to get a pair of Sierra Sats for my surrounds, but when I do eventually get an Atmos setup I was going to use the HTM 200 SE's.

It's always great to see an Audiophile that doesn't explain and justify away their purchases pretending that they're going to get some huge, magical sound upgrade, and be honest and just say "ya know, I really, really want it." I did that with my Schiit Bifrost Multibit upgrade, and I also did that when I went with balanced connections between my Marantz AV7701 and Emotiva XPA-5 and my F12 subs. Sure, unbalanced would probably sound exactly the same, but I always wanted a fully balanced setup, just because.

[davef]

Yes, they are more then good enough for surrounds and atmos. For movies, I seriously doubt anyone could tell the difference with double blind testing. Remember, it is very rare for you to get any voices out them (like Gravity) that could make the small difference audibly noticeable.

IMHO, replacing surround and rear HTMs with the Sierra Sat. for movies, is more of a want or mental thing (like wanting massive amps with efficient & easy to drive speakers :-) rather then an actual performance need. I can cross all of mine at 60-80hz.

The 200s are terrific and really underpriced. Also, I probably wouldn't use a ribbon tweeter for the atmos speakers due to their limited vertical dispersion.

But then again, I'm craving some more 220wpc Anthem amps so I can have a matching set. 100% unnecessary.

As good as our 200's are, after testing this myself, there are very noticeable difference between using the 200's and our forthcoming ribbon sats as rears. The easiest thing to notice is that the sats have extremely wide horizontal dispersion, MUCH more so than our 200's, and even noticeably more than our Sierra-2. This is due to the ribbon tweeter, smaller woofer and much narrower baffle. The end result with the Sat's as rears is a very wide and immersive rear soundstage (and even as front mains). I was actually a bit surprised at just how noticeable this difference was compared to our 200's and even 170's as surrounds. They throw sound everywhere, but yet maintain the precise imaging of a monopole design. Horizontal off-axis response on the ribbon sats is amazing....

As far at ATMOS ceiling speakers, 200's are likely the better choice as they provide a more symmetrical 360 degree coverage area.

[Todd WI]

dang it Dave, every time I get close to convincing myself on the 200s you add some details about the Sats and reel me back in.

[davef]

dang it Dave, every time I get close to convincing myself on the 200s you add some details about the Sats and reel me back in.

Sorry -- didn't mean to but I really had to share my experience when comparing our 200's to the R-Sat...

[Todd WI]

No problem, the 200s will be my surrounds For a while. I might eventually replace them with Sats, but other upgrades (including ascends in other places) are now pencilled in before that.

[sludgeogre]

As good as our 200's are, after testing this myself, there are very noticeable difference between using the 200's and our forthcoming ribbon sats as rears. The easiest thing to notice is that the sats have extremely wide horizontal dispersion, MUCH more so than our 200's, and even noticeably more than our Sierra-2. This is due to the ribbon tweeter, smaller woofer and much narrower baffle. The end result with the Sat's as rears is a very wide and immersive rear soundstage (and even as front mains). I was actually a bit surprised at just how noticeable this difference was compared to our 200's and even 170's as surrounds. They throw sound everywhere, but yet maintain the precise imaging of a monopole design. Horizontal off-axis response on the ribbon sats is amazing....

As far at ATMOS ceiling speakers, 200's are likely the better choice as they provide a more symmetrical 360 degree coverage area.

This really makes me excited to get my Sierra Sats. I'm using Klipsch R-15M bookshelf speakers as surrounds and the beamyness and harshness of them is terrible. The longer I live with them, the more I can't stand them. Can't wait for my Sierra Sats and eventually HTM 200 SE atmos setup.

[yesplease]

As good as our 200's are, after testing this myself, there are very noticeable difference between using the 200's and our forthcoming ribbon sats as rears.

Damn!!! Thanks a lot!

Curious how far the speakers were from the lp when you noticed that? And you were listening to a movie right?

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

[Todd WI]

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

At least he gave you a pass on your ceiling speakers, for now anyway. :)

[davef]

Damn!!! Thanks a lot!

Curious how far the speakers were from the lp when you noticed that? And you were listening to a movie right?

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

Watched scenes from several movies and also listened to some well recorded multichannel music. Surrounds were about 3-4 feet distance from the MLP.