EdmMike, I'm pretty sure I've already pointed out my disagreements to FR, but I'll do so once again for your benefit, if only so you can choose to be unfortunately confused.
You can make your opinion on the matter eventually.
You're most welcome!
Most people use their surround sound system to mostly watch movies and TV. As such, the job of the surround and surround back speakers is to mostly create ambiance and maybe add the odd discrete sound effect. It is extremely rare that the surround speakers are used to match any sounds that are coming from the front sound-stage in movies or TV. For movie and TV soundtracks, the surround and surround back speakers are also meant to be placed up high - about 2-3 feet above seated ear height. Again, this is because their job is primarily ambiance.
The ideal is ear level. Having the speakers up high is a misunderstood and archaic idea, even if modern theaters still have speakers up high.
Think about surround effects. Watching a movie, when a hot lady is walking is heels in a resonant space, it sounds real. When a door closes on your right side, it sounds real. When a car crash goes, say, from front to back, it sounds real. Why does it sound real? Because they designed the freq response to make it so. All of the ambient cues are embedded right into the tracks themselves, and hence the "realism".
The main reason to put speakers up higher is simply to fire over blocking furniture or seat backs, and or multiple human heads.
If the speakers will be up higher, you will want to angle them to be on axis. For once the speakers are off axis (which would be exactly the case when mounting higher and not angling) you now receive inaccurate off-axis response, and therefore some of the work of the sound engineers are lost on you.
If it's best for music, then it's still best for HT, as far as freq response goes. Ideally, speakers would still be on the plane of the ears with multiple viewers when the angles do work out. (Because if they're high, even as angled, only that spot is close to being on axis). And lastly, being off axis horizontally to a vertically arrayed speaker is better than being off axis vertically to a vertically arrayed speaker. Of course, granted, worst is having both . . .
For movies and TV though, it is not nearly as vital for the surround speakers to match at all. And most music is still in stereo anyway. When you use something like Dolby Pro Logic IIx Music mode to expand your stereo music to full surround sound, it processing the music so that ambient cues and a sense of "space" are what come through the surround speakers. So, once again, not at all important for the surround speakers to match the front 3
I wouldn't say "not at all important". Just a lot less important. It's still best, and IMO, still easily discernible even with HT only. I have a stereo as well as dedicated HT, and the latter has gone through a myriad of variations in the last few years, whether just mismatched surrounds, or even mismatched center, and when finally the surrounds matched, it was actually a nice benefit. Extremely important? No. Enjoyable improvement? Yes.
In fact, I took a step backwards in matching. Even if from the same lineup, let alone brand, I mounted bipoles for greater coverage in the multi row theater. The rather large bookshelves that were there before matched better. I had identical bookshelves for rear speakers, and I went with the entry level, even if of the same brand, because I desired ceiling mount to fire over the raised second row. The difference is discernible.
My point is, if it's easy to match, why wouldn't you? If you can save considerably money by not matching, sure it's a relatively easy compromise to swallow.
However, I would never say "not at all important".
