5.2 with proper speaker placement? Or 7.2 with modified placement?

[bstan]

It was not my intention to insult you, but I thought I was very clear about my goals and limitations. Fine by me, let's lock the tread. Apparently we've exhausted all possibilities.

1. My best bet is to stick with the 5.2.
2. I can try the 7.2 with the imperfect placement, but I should expect imperfect results, and it may even be worse than sticking the 5.2.
3. Adding two atmos speakers for a 5.2.2 may be a better solution to improve the sound of my system.

Thanks all for.your contributions, I really do appreciate you!

 

[bstan]

It was not my intention to insult you, but I thought I was very clear about my goals and limitations. Fine by me, let's lock the tread. Apparently we've exhausted all possibilities.

1. My best bet is to stick with the 5.2.
2. I can try the 7.2 with the imperfect placement, but I should expect imperfect results, and it may even be worse than sticking the 5.2.
3. Adding two atmos speakers for a 5.2.2 may be a better solution to improve the sound of my system.

Thanks all for.your contributions, I really do appreciate you!

Oh, and my best bet may be to stick with front three! Forgot to list this in my conclusions . Thanks again.

 

[TLS Guy]

Look. You don't care for this hobby.

Stick with what you have already and don't ever discuss making a change that will ruin a properly correct system.

I'm prepared to help you on your journey however any refusal of any kind will end the discussions immediately. You have no passion or care therefore it's not worth wasting time or effort on you.

Stick with what you have and lock the thread.

What's the point of this thread only to ruin what you already have?
Good bye and enjoy living the rest of your ether life without care.
I tried to help you. You won't help yourself.

You're welcome!

He did, and took my sensible and practical advice. Those sort of rooms are just not suitable for surround speakers. The end result is not worth it. You have to pay attention to architectural considerations just as much, and may be more, than the technical audio ones. After all, the front channels are 95% of the loaf, the rest is just a layer of very thin icing on top. I have 2.1, 3.1 and 7.2.4. I could live very happily and contentedly with any one of them. In fact I lived with 2.0 most of my life and enjoyed the entire experience. We should tell more members that two good channels beats a higher count of more lesser speakers by more then a country mile. Actually this practice of adding surround speakers of lesser quality is actually not a benefit, but a move in the wrong direction.

As we progress into Atmos, I'm increasingly convinced that this should be confined, by and large, to custom designed and constructed rooms.

The OP is correct to listen to his wife. In the end this is all about good audio in the home without causing architectural mayhem to family living spaces. It is the excellence of the totality of the system that brings added pleasure and satisfaction to the living spaces we call home.

You need to review your approach to audio and AV in the home. My way or the high way does not cut it and won't round here, so knock it off.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Look. You don't care for this hobby.

Stick with what you have already and don't ever discuss making a change that will ruin a properly correct system.

I'm prepared to help you on your journey however any refusal of any kind will end the discussions immediately. You have no passion or care therefore it's not worth wasting time or effort on you.

Stick with what you have and lock the thread.

What's the point of this thread only to ruin what you already have?
Good bye and enjoy living the rest of your ether life without care.
I tried to help you. You won't help yourself.

You're welcome!

Ok. You can shut the Fukk up and go back to your moms bedroom 5.1.2 perfectly symmetrical Atmos system and cast down your all knowing lord helmet advice. What makes you and your advice so important. NOTHING. You do the same shitt on AVS and nobody there likes your bullshitt either. So go back and lick your mom and shut up.
Who do you think you are? Have you installed anything except in your mom? I mean her bedroom system? Nope. People have to compromise sometimes. Except when it comes to your moms room…
Even your gear is midland, so why are you so important? Your not. Shut the Fukk up.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

@bstan
I think 5.x.2 is the simplest thing here, and best return. Rear surrounds are great, but moving speakers is a PITA, and imo, 5.1.2 is better than 7.1. Additionally, 5.1.4 is better than both, and 7.1.4(and more) will win the day.
I would try for 5.x.4 and move on.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

He did, and took my sensible and practical advice. Those sort of rooms are just not suitable for surround speakers. The end result is not worth it. You have to pay attention to architectural considerations just as much, and may be more, than the technical audio ones. After all, the front channels are 95% of the loaf, the rest is just a layer of very thin icing on top. I have 2.1, 3.1 and 7.2.4. I could live very happily and contentedly with any one of them. In fact I lived with 2.0 most of my life and enjoyed the entire experience. We should tell more members that two good channels beats a higher count of more lesser speakers by more then a country mile. Actually this practice of adding surround speakers of lesser quality is actually not a benefit, but a move in the wrong direction.

As we progress into Atmos, I'm increasingly convinced that this should be confined, by and large, to custom designed and constructed rooms.

The OP is correct to listen to his wife. In the end this is all about good audio in the home without causing architectural mayhem to family living spaces. It is the excellence of the totality of the system that brings added pleasure and satisfaction to the living spaces we call home.

You need to review your approach to audio and AV in the home. My way or the high way does not cut it and won't round here, so knock it off.

Well said mark. Problem is wardog is quite self important, and feels his advice is worth something, and is happy to withhold it back from those who don’t live in mom’s basement. Wow, the HT world will be so much lesser for his withholding of proper advice. Strict adherence to the letter of Dolby’s diagrams in Leu of ANY practicality be dammed.
Thank goodness wardog is here to set us all straight.
No problems with the land down unda, just think he should stay ender the rock he lives.

 

[bstan]

@bstan
I think 5.x.2 is the simplest thing here, and best return. Rear surrounds are great, but moving speakers is a PITA, and imo, 5.1.2 is better than 7.1. Additionally, 5.1.4 is better than both, and 7.1.4(and more) will win the day.
I would try for 5.x.4 and move on.

I dont know this dude but clearly he has a reputation.

I could do 5.2.2 or 5.2.4. 5.2.2 would be easiest I'm that that two ceiling speakers would be symmetrically placed between the two rows of recessed lights. My wife is headed out of town this weekend, probably wouldnt even notice if they are there when she gets back 5.2.4 would require the second pair to be placed behind the couch, in no man's land between the two rooms, which would be much more conspicuous. Could i get away woth 2? Or are 4 ceiling speakers markedly better?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Imo you could definitely get away with two. The difference would be placement. For .2 they would be placed just in front of the couch. Where .4 would be 45° fore and aft of the MLP.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Edit: .4 is markedly better. You will have forward and backward panning as well as side to side, plus better XYZ axes placement of objects. However being “worth” it is completely up to you.