I don't mean that kind of bottom. I mean speakers supplying sound from below. Yes, I understand that is pointless with the 2.5 dimensional sound that exists now. My post is about theoretical, rather than practical though. I don't ever expect to have or need 26 speakers. Outside of an amusement park or a lab, I would be surprised if any such thing ever exists.
I don't disagree with that. "Lucky" for me too that my wife is also understanding. With a little less luck, I would have a lot more money in the bank.
It is interesting you bring that up. There is no general acceptance of floor speakers. However in listening studies at the university of Sheffield UK, they found that front floor speakers were more important than height or ceiling speakers in creating a realistic sound field. The proviso was that the mic arrangement had to allow for that. In their studies they were using a modified Decca tree arrangement and it had to include modification to pick up floor reflections at the front of the sound field.
Jim's point remains relevant however. Whist all this is very interesting, does it really advance good audio in the home? Jim is probably right, that it has the reverse effect. I think percentage wise, there are now less homes with good audio, than there were back in the sixties, seventies and eighties. Part of that is competition for funds, from Internet and computer requirements. You can't escape the fact that 15 speakers and their powering is much more costly than two that was the norm in previous generations.
I belong to the mono era and remember the introduction of stereo. The pundits thought that social resistance going from one speaker to two would be enormous. They were wrong. Stereo spread like wild fire in homes. The audio in the home, quickly become known as the "stereo". Acceptance of any multichannel audio, except sound bars has been at a snails pace compared to going from mono to stereo.