A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[Artsfols]

I think it is obvious that there is a continuum between "they are here" and "you are there" impressions, depending on the relative strengths of early (listening room) and late (recorded real or synthesized large space reflections). Some recordings aim at one target, others at the other - the recording engineer and musicians make that artistic decision. Whatever the artistic goal, limits are imposed by the delivery format. In real life, the powerful and attractive impression of "envelopment" - of being in a large space - is delivered mainly by late reflections (> 80 ms) arriving from about 60 deg +/- away from center - where side wall reflections come from in large rooms. These must be in recordings, and they must be delivered by loudspeakers farther to the side of listeners than the stereo L & R speakers at +/- 30 deg. Serious experiments have been done showing that the conventional 5 channel configuration does a very good job of approximating the envelopment of many more channels. Stereo does poorly. It is not the loudspeaker, or the listening room, or any mysterious unmeasured or unmeasurable factor that is the limitation to reproducing something that sounds "real' - it is stereo itself.

This does not mean that stereo "fails", it means that it is simply not the best format. A vast percentage of these forum discussions comparing "opinions" and personal experiences make it clear that consumers are not content with the way things are, but the industry is not interested in solving the problem because they can sell what they have. Stereo is cheap and easy to record and it has become the cost-effective default product. Sadly, as has been discussed in this forum more than once, it is a pity that the acoustical crosstalk degrades the fidelity of all phantom images, especially that of the featured artist in the center.

I am not a fan of all that Dolby does and has done - e.g., they have deliberately obstructed attempts to improve cinema sound. Atmos is a mixed bag of properties, and it seems that customers are not rushing to equip for it. However, it is interesting that in their current endeavor to sell Atmos music recordings to the public they are attempting to make additional channels at +/- 50 deg standard for Atmos music recordings. Vanishingly small numbers of consumers will have loudspeakers in those locations, so their motivation is puzzling.

The locations, though, are excellent, and I have my own side loudspeakers located around +/- 70 deg, not +/- 110 deg as is normal. Why? Because I have 7 channels and the two rear channels provide the flyover illusions for movies and the relocated front loudspeakers provide more credible envelopment effects for music and movie soundtracks. Personal priorities.

Knowing about acoustics and psychoacoustics has advantages. Most of my stereo music is subtly upmixed, adding just a hint of envelopment. Finding and adjusting a tasteful upmixer is challenging, and some recordings do not respond, so an "off" icon is important. But when I switch back to raw stereo, something pleasant often disappears - the soundstage becomes smaller. Some of the best sounding surround sound is in movies and music videos - these people have been working with multiple channels for decades. In movies the center channel does most of the work, delivering virtually all dialog and on-screen sounds. In music recordings it is often omitted because it is timbrally incompatible with (better than) phantom images on the soundstage. There is no better solution that is both practical and economic, so we make do with what we have. Understanding what we have helps.

Interesting that you make adjustment to a stereo recording. I'm not at a level where I can improve them, and best practice for me, for a top notch stereo recording: leave it alone, make sure centre channel (and surrounds if I had them) are off.
I have noticed with my BPO subscription that on my Apple TV box, supposedly the best in audio fidelity for streaming video services, they deliver a very flat and uninteresting format which they call "high definition stereo". Some months later these same recordings re-appear in Dolby Atmos. But on my televisions built in BPO app, they deliver in Dolby Atmos. The Atmos sound is far superior ... I only play it in 3.1, 4 channels. To me, the stereo delivery has a mixdown issue of some kind. I suspect that since they have gone to multi-channel recording, they no longer pay attention to the quality of the stereo mix. The difference is especially stark when the audience applauds; it's almost mono and point sourced in the stereo delivery, whereas it's immersive and delightfully rich in the Atmos mode.
I will add one note on stereo. To me, almost nothing matches a full range, well mixed stereo recording played through my single play CD player (an Arcam, not that brand matters). Of course, this is a separate consideration from creating a you-are-there-listening-to-an -orchestra experience. Someone has taken an effort to make the image sound as good as possible through stereo speakers. Arguably SACD is better as an engineered format with a player that does not squeeze the sound back into CD level DACs. But the pains taken in recording induce much more variability into the result than the storage format.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Arguably SACD is better as an engineered format with a player that does not squeeze the sound back into CD level DACs. But the pains taken in recording induce much more variability into the result than the storage format.

Where this has been tested it was not the expanded SACD bandwidth that "Improved" the sound quality - it was the extra attention paid during recording. CD DACs deliver as much as humans are able to hear if competently used. The multichannel SACD recordings are a separate issue - and well recorded multichannel has a huge advantage.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I am not a fan of all that Dolby does and has done - e.g., they have deliberately obstructed attempts to improve cinema sound

Fully agree!

 

[Artsfols]

Where this has been tested it was not the expanded SACD bandwidth that "Improved" the sound quality - it was the extra attention paid during recording. CD DACs deliver as much as humans are able to hear if competently used. The multichannel SACD recordings are a separate issue - and well recorded multichannel has a huge advantage.

I agree in general. That is, the additional frequency range of an SACD over a CD provides no human hearable difference. Even moreso in my case with hearing topping out at 12kHz at best. (Which actually isn't that much practical diminishment, but I digress).
However, digital sampling and encoding of analog sound presents its own problems. I recently added a Technics mid price turntable to my stereo (that's what we used to call them) purely for nostalgia reasons, and I'm struck with how pleasant and warm analog vinyl sounds. This could actually be due to a deprecation in fidelity, but I'm not sure that bit level errors in common DACs aren't also an issue.
So what I am suggesting here is that my SACDs might sound better through use of a better DAC.
(I did rip 2000 or so pop tracks from my CDs and empirically could only hear a difference in MP3s encoded below 192kHz variable rate, a significant drop from CD level encoding. I made all lossless rips in any case and additional encoding for my portable players at 192 kHz MP3 variable. So if there's no hearable difference going from 192 khz MP3 to CD, a big step in number of bits used, how would I hear a difference stepping from CD to SACD?)
King Crimson's Lizard was a favourite when it came out, so I jumped on the Steve Wilson re-engineered issue on DVD Audio. I use this when I want to blow visitors away ... figuratively, not physically. How much of this is the medium, and how much Steve Wilson? Some of both, but more of the latter I believe.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I'm struck with how pleasant and warm analog vinyl sounds. This could actually be due to a deprecation in fidelity, but I'm not sure that bit level errors in common DACs aren't also an issue.

Back in the days when LPs were the source of programs for listening tests, when I was a research scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and took little for granted, I investigated what could be done to maximize the sound quality from LPs. It was a learning exercise, and I documented most of it in articles written in the Canadian audio magazines - the good old days . . . The research is summarized in the 4th edition of my book (due later this year), and some of original articles will be in the companion website. It is evident to me that a great many people today don't understand how LPs are created and played and the simple fact that it is a very non-linear process, with significant "art" involved in the very compromised "LP mastering" exercise.

Long story short: LPs do not and cannot replicate what is on the master tape: the original art. What is heard is a significantly modified, noisy, distorted version. I made a test recording and compared what went in to what came out - they are different. Distortions of all kinds in whole percentages, noise that was not subtle.

One of the saddest facts of the LP era is something that Phil Ramone told me (Google him - he is a somebody). He said that a senior person supervising the priceless archives of master recordings (analog tape at the time) decided that LPs were the final stage of audio evolution and to save tape he preserved the LP cutting tapes and sent the masters back to be recorded over. The masters of those performances were lost and what was saved was the manipulated version created to drive the cutting head making the original lacquers. These have mono bass (to prevent the stylus from being thrown out of the groove), modified spectrum and dynamic range so that the grooves could be closer together (playing time) , rolled-off high frequencies near the centre of the record (to minimize stylus tracing and tracking distortions when groove velocity drops). It is no surprise that some comparisons between LP and CD versions had puzzling results. When the best LP playback is compared to the master tape from which is is created, it is a different experience - the master wins. Digital copies of the analog master tapes are indistinguishable from them. Today all masters that matter are digital. End of story.

All else is nostalgia, imagination, and folklore. We have moved on, but old things still have fascinations. I like some old cars, but would never argue that they are as good as their modern versions. Nice for a Sunday drive.

 

[Mart68]

King Crimson's Lizard was a favourite when it came out, so I jumped on the Steve Wilson re-engineered issue on DVD Audio. I use this when I want to blow visitors away ... figuratively, not physically. How much of this is the medium, and how much Steve Wilson? Some of both, but more of the latter I believe.

It's 100 percent Steve Wilson. Put the same remaster on a CD, it will sound the same.

I too thought the same as you until a friend challenged me to blind test it.

 

[MattHooper]

However, what is required to capture and deliver the equivalent of the "live" experience is binaural (dummy head) recordings delivered through calibrated insert headphones, including low-latency head tracking. I have heard it, and one is truly "there". The same sounds one would have heard at the concert are delivered to the eardrums - as near as technically possible.

Though no matter how spatially and tonally convincing, it seems fair to say a headphone experience is unlikely to be able to truly re-create the effect of many live experiences, because it lacks the body feel/acoustic impact that can be produced by live instruments or concerts.

If you’re near a drum set, you can feel the percussive hit of the bass drum in a way you’re not going to get in a headphone.

Which is why many of us actually prefer listening through loudspeakers rather than headphones.

Therefore, ideally It would be a loudspeaker set up, using whatever sound processing necessary to do something like what you get from a binaural recording, that would get us even closer to reality in principle.

Would you agree?

(Btw, I certainly appreciate your proselytizing for surround sound! I sort of “do” surround sound as a living - I have worked in sound design for film and tv for 35 years, mixing in some pretty amazing studios, and I’m a Home Theatre fanatic as well. That certainly doesn’t make me an expert in engineering and psychoacoustics, but it’s fun to be a part of creating surround sound experiences, as well as being able to hear them in some of the best studio conditions ).

 

[MaxwellsEq]

When the best LP playback is compared to the master tape from which is is created, it is a different experience - the master wins. Digital copies of the analog master tapes are indistinguishable from them. Today all masters that matter are digital. End of story.

My experience as well comparing original master tape with LP.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Though no matter how spatially and tonally convincing, it seems fair to say a headphone experience is unlikely to be able to truly re-create the effect of many live experiences, because it lacks the body feel/acoustic impact that can be produced by live instruments or concerts.

If you’re near a drum set, you can feel the percussive hit of the bass drum in a way you’re not going to get in a headphone.

Which is why many of us actually prefer listening through loudspeakers rather than headphones.

Therefore, ideally It would be a loudspeaker set up, using whatever sound processing necessary to do something like what you get from a binaural recording, that would get us even closer to reality in principle.

Would you agree?

(Btw, I certainly appreciate your proselytizing for surround sound! I sort of “do” surround sound as a living - I have worked in sound design for film and tv for 35 years, mixing in some pretty amazing studios, and I’m a Home Theatre fanatic as well. That certainly doesn’t make me an expert in engineering and psychoacoustics, but it’s fun to be a part of creating surround sound experiences, as well as being able to hear them in some of the best studio conditions ).

Sean Olive discusses the bass issue with headphones in the 4th ed. Apparently, some tactile compensation is possible with vibration transducers. But, I'm with you, I rarely listen to headphones, and then mainly because of circumstances. Imaging is weird, but sound quality can be very impressive. Nevertheless . . . with my multi-sub setups I have enjoyed being "lifted" in my chair by the low bass and punched in my belly by the kick drum.

 

[jeffaegrim]

@Floyd Toole thank you very much for your contributions to the forum - I am glad you have some time off to dedicate to us while the new edition of the book is being finalised.

You mentioned that we aren’t as sensitive to loudspeaker resonances in a multichannel setup. Is a multichannel setup still viable even with significant differences in DI between the channels? Or is mixing loudspeakers with slightly different tonality/directivity -the latter being a thing that can’t be EQ’d away - ill advised? I guess what I’m asking is whether our hearing is as forgiving in unconventional multichannel situations

 

[Duke]

I think it is obvious that there is a continuum between "they are here" and "you are there" impressions, depending on the relative strengths of early (listening room) and late (recorded real or synthesized large space reflections).

I totally agree with you that what makes the difference lies in "the relative strengths of the early (listening room) and late (recorded real or synthesized large space) reflections."

I agree that there is a continuum, but ime there can be an audible "point of inflection" on that continuum. I'm unfortunately constrained to using examples arising from my limited experience:

Working with arguably well-behaved bi-directional loudspeakers, ime there is a correlation between soundstage depth (an aspect of "you are there") and distance between speakers and front wall. At the risk of oversimplifying: Speakers 2 feet out = soundstage about 4 feet deep; speakers 4 feet out = soundstage about 8 feet deep; and speakers 8 feet out = soundstage pretty much as deep as what is on the recording. In my experimental set-up the "point of inflection" where the soundstage depth transitioned from being a function of distance-to-the-wall to being a function of what's on the recording seemed to happen around 5 or 6 feet, with greater distance being a bit better but not by a huge margin. (I've omitted the effects of changes to the speaker-to-listener distance from this description, but ime that also plays a role.)

In other words, there seems to be a point of inflection, at least somewhat related to reflection arrival times, at which the "sense of space" becomes dominated by the recording's spatial cues rather than by the playback room's spatial cues. Imo that point of inflection is the transition from "they are here" to "you are there".

Some recordings aim at one target, others at the other - the recording engineer and musicians make that artistic decision.

I don't know enough about the recording process to have realized that sometimes recording engineers and musicians are deliberately aiming for a "they are here" perspective! Thank you for expanding my awareness. Now that I think about it, those would probably be the recordings that I find less spatially interesting, and they don't get played as much.

 

[Floyd Toole]

@Floyd Toole thank you very much for your contributions to the forum - I am glad you have some time off to dedicate to us while the new edition of the book is being finalised.

You mentioned that we aren’t as sensitive to loudspeaker resonances in a multichannel setup. Is a multichannel setup still viable even with significant differences in DI between the channels? Or is mixing loudspeakers with slightly different tonality/directivity -the latter being a thing that can’t be EQ’d away - ill advised? I guess what I’m asking is whether our hearing is as forgiving in unconventional multichannel situations

If you have been following my posts or have read my book(s) you would know that the direct sound dominates the impression of sound quality above the transition/Schroeder frequency. Directivity - i.e. early reflections - are significant in mono and stereo listening, but much less relevant in multichannel systems because the desirable recorded reflections dominate the listening room reflections. If you have chosen well-designed, neutral, loudspeakers EQ above about 500 Hz is not likely to be needed, and if done badly can degrade good loudspeakers. For the Nth time: room curves are results, not targets for EQ.

All that said, low frequency room resonances must be addressed in any mode of listening, meaning bass management, two or four subwoofers, and discrete EQ. All this has been discussed in my posts over the years, and is in my books.

Sorry to be sounding "commercial" by mentioning my books, but practically everything I write in this forum and others is in them - and more. It just would seem like a worthwhile investment in relevant knowledge. BTW technical books earn very little money - and I don't need it, so my involvement with this forum is purely a teaching exercise for me in my retirement. It bothers me that so much effort is expended in unsubstantiated chatter, when there is real knowledge that would elevate the discussion to a more interesting and rewarding level. Some of you forum members are already there, I know - and thank you for your continued support. The upcoming 4th edition should be a fairly definitive statement of where the audio industry stands, and there are some fresh observations on how we hear what gives us pleasure, along with state-of-the-art knowledge on headphones by Sean Olive. End of commercial message

 

[Artsfols]

Back in the days when LPs were the source of programs for listening tests, when I was a research scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and took little for granted, I investigated what could be done to maximize the sound quality from LPs. It was a learning exercise, and I documented most of it in articles written in the Canadian audio magazines - the good old days . . . The research is summarized in the 4th edition of my book (due later this year), and some of original articles will be in the companion website. It is evident to me that a great many people today don't understand how LPs are created and played and the simple fact that it is a very non-linear process, with significant "art" involved in the very compromised "LP mastering" exercise.

Long story short: LPs do not and cannot replicate what is on the master tape: the original art. What is heard is a significantly modified, noisy, distorted version. I made a test recording and compared what went in to what came out - they are different. Distortions of all kinds in whole percentages, noise that was not subtle.

One of the saddest facts of the LP era is something that Phil Ramone told me (Google him - he is a somebody). He said that a senior person supervising the priceless archives of master recordings (analog tape at the time) decided that LPs were the final stage of audio evolution and to save tape he preserved the LP cutting tapes and sent the masters back to be recorded over. The masters of those performances were lost and what was saved was the manipulated version created to drive the cutting head making the original lacquers. These have mono bass (to prevent the stylus from being thrown out of the groove), modified spectrum and dynamic range so that the grooves could be closer together (playing time) , rolled-off high frequencies near the centre of the record (to minimize stylus tracing and tracking distortions when groove velocity drops). It is no surprise that some comparisons between LP and CD versions had puzzling results. When the best LP playback is compared to the master tape from which is is created, it is a different experience - the master wins. Digital copies of the analog master tapes are indistinguishable from them. Today all masters that matter are digital. End of story.

All else is nostalgia, imagination, and folklore. We have moved on, but old things still have fascinations. I like some old cars, but would never argue that they are as good as their modern versions. Nice for a Sunday drive.

Is that Phil "I want to be sedated" Ramone? Oops, wrong Ramone family.
That's quite an interesting history in its own right, but not surprising as far as fidelity is concerned. As I said, for me it is pure nostalgia.
Come to think of it, here's me with the first album I repurchased for the turntable I mentioned.

Unboxing the ‘White Album’. Suddenly, it’s 1968, and we’re back in the USSR.

This could not be resisted: the 50th anniversary release of the Beatles White Album, vinyl, in an exact replica of the original release. The ‘White Album’ isn’t the Beatles …

gesprek.net

(That's 6 years ago. I have a better turntable and wall mounted to avoid the floor bounce.)

 

[Artsfols]

It's 100 percent Steve Wilson. Put the same remaster on a CD, it will sound the same.

I too thought the same as you until a friend challenged me to blind test it.

It's a 2 disc release with a CD as well, but different mix I think. Of course, the DVD audio also has a multi-track mix so there is that.
I don't contest your finding.

 

[Mart68]

It's a 2 disc release with a CD as well, but different mix I think. Of course, the DVD audio also has a multi-track mix so there is that.
I don't contest your finding.

The first SACD I bought was Rolling Stone's 'Beggars Banquet'. I did not realise it was a SACD until I got it home.

I was going to play poker at a friend's who had a SACD player. So I took it round there. His system was quite modest but it sounded so excellent we were both astounded. As the players turned up they were each in turn entranced by the sound.

When it ended we started the game but one player refused to join until he had listened to the whole album again. And these were civilians, not hi-fi enthusiasts.

I was sold on SACD and bought a player and more discs right away. It was only several years later someone enlightened me to what now seems obvious. Just a very good remaster.

 

[jeffaegrim]

If you have been following my posts or have read my book(s) you would know that the direct sound dominates the impression of sound quality above the transition/Schroeder frequency. Directivity - i.e. early reflections - are significant in mono and stereo listening, but much less relevant in multichannel systems because the desirable recorded reflections dominate the listening room reflections. If you have chosen well-designed, neutral, loudspeakers EQ above about 500 Hz is not likely to be needed, and if done badly can degrade good loudspeakers. For the Nth time: room curves are results, not targets for EQ.

All that said, low frequency room resonances must be addressed in any mode of listening, meaning bass management, two or four subwoofers, and discrete EQ. All this has been discussed in my posts over the years, and is in my books.

Sorry to be sounding "commercial" by mentioning my books, but practically everything I write in this forum and others is in them - and more. It just would seem like a worthwhile investment in relevant knowledge. BTW technical books earn very little money - and I don't need it, so my involvement with this forum is purely a teaching exercise for me in my retirement. It bothers me that so much effort is expended in unsubstantiated chatter, when there is real knowledge that would elevate the discussion to a more interesting and rewarding level. Some of you forum members are already there, I know - and thank you for your continued support. The upcoming 4th edition should be a fairly definitive statement of where the audio industry stands, and there are some fresh observations on how we hear what gives us pleasure, along with state-of-the-art knowledge on headphones by Sean Olive. End of commercial message

Thank you very much for taking the time to write a response! Having only read bits and pieces from your book, the answer to my question wasn’t as obvious to me as it seems now. Just to be clear though, I am intimately familiar with your stance on equalisation above Schroeder - you must be absolutely exasperated trying to communicate the inherent necessity of choosing well designed, neutral loudspeakers. I have so many of your posts on this topic saved.

I am furthermore sure that most - if not all - members here regard your contributions as particularly valuable public service. I just hope you know that it never goes unappreciated. As slim as that contribution will be, I am looking forward to finally owning a physical copy of your book and perhaps getting to help elevate the discussions here to a more desirable level Also looking forward towards adding more channels to my system.

(hopefully finished with my degree until the book comes out - which will free up lots of time)

 

[DanielT]

King Crimson's Lizard was a favourite when it came out, so I jumped on the Steve Wilson re-engineered issue on DVD Audio. I use this when I want to blow visitors away ... figuratively, not physically. How much of this is the medium, and how much Steve Wilson? Some of both, but more of the latter I believe.

I will continue to spin on what you said, it will also be, for the topic of the thread, OT below:

Speaking of Steven Wilson. He fixed The Tipping Point (Tears for Fears album). Damn good music but the recording was brutally compressed.

They have murdered "Tears for Fears" ... digitally!

Check this out: https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/03/04/tears-for-fears-the-tipping-point-review-lp-cd-qobuz-tidal-amazon-atmos-blu-ray-audio/ ALL the existing digital formats are screwed! The compression, the clipping! Quoting my buddy Danny: "The sound engineers should be shot. Out of a...

audiosciencereview.com

Steven Wilson fixed that compressed problem in/for 5.1 Surround and Dolby Atmos:

The Tipping Point - Steven Wilson

stevenwilsonhq.com

You may be familiar with this, in that case general for those who read this thread:
Steven Wilson an interesting person. There are quite a few Youtube videos where he discusses different music formats, recordings, HiFi and so on.

Steven Wilson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He has created a boost for prog rock, for example with this superb record that I can recommend:

The Raven That Refused to Sing (And Other Stories) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

____
King Crimson and Robert Fripp. If you have a YouTube channel where you react, comment on music you listen to and get enough followers, it can result in a reaction to a band and song you've never heard before with commentary and discussion along with:

 

[Artsfols]

I will continue to spin on what you said, it will also be, for the topic of the thread, OT below:

Speaking of Steven Wilson. He fixed The Tipping Point (Tears for Fears album). Damn good music but the recording was brutally compressed.

They have murdered "Tears for Fears" ... digitally!

Check this out: https://magicvinyldigital.net/2022/03/04/tears-for-fears-the-tipping-point-review-lp-cd-qobuz-tidal-amazon-atmos-blu-ray-audio/ ALL the existing digital formats are screwed! The compression, the clipping! Quoting my buddy Danny: "The sound engineers should be shot. Out of a...

audiosciencereview.com

Steven Wilson fixed that compressed problem in/for 5.1 Surround and Dolby Atmos:
View attachment 420738

The Tipping Point - Steven Wilson

stevenwilsonhq.com

You may be familiar with this, in that case general for those who read this thread:
Steven Wilson an interesting person. There are quite a few Youtube videos where he discusses different music formats, recordings, HiFi and so on.

Steven Wilson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He has created a boost for prog rock, for example with this superb record that I can recommend:

The Raven That Refused to Sing (And Other Stories) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

____
King Crimson and Robert Fripp. If you have a YouTube channel where you react, comment on music you listen to and get enough followers, it can result in a reaction to a band and song you've never heard before with commentary and discussion along with:

I watched the Robert Fripp reaction video. Not something I normally do, and likely never will again. An interesting track though.

 

[tifune]

. Sadly, the seriously impressive version was too expensive at the time.

Was anything based on this design ever released as prices came down/tech improved? I'm not sure if what you're describing is similar to BACCH, although it sounds like the result would be similar.

The locations, though, are excellent, and I have my own side loudspeakers located around +/- 70 deg, not +/- 110 deg as is normal. Why? Because I have 7 channels and the two rear channels provide the flyover illusions for movies and the relocated front loudspeakers provide more credible envelopment effects for music and movie soundtracks. Personal priorities.

"Relocated front loudspeakers" - sorry if I missed it, how are yours configured? It sounds like you're a proponent of front wide configurations, which I quite enjoy myself but yes it's difficult to find discreet content as such (and, in domestic environments, equally difficult to get partner buy-in for "2 MORE speakers??").

 

[Floyd Toole]

Was anything based on this design ever released as prices came down/tech improved? I'm not sure if what you're describing is similar to BACCH, although it sounds like the result would be similar.

"Relocated front loudspeakers" - sorry if I missed it, how are yours configured? It sounds like you're a proponent of front wide configurations, which I quite enjoy myself but yes it's difficult to find discreet content as such (and, in domestic environments, equally difficult to get partner buy-in for "2 MORE speakers??").

As I said, with the digital horsepower that is now widely available binaural/transaural signal processing is readily accomplished, and BACCH is one version. Harman continues to use versions of spatial processing in multichannel automotive audio systems. All such systems rely on knowing where the listeners are seated with respect to the loudspeakers. There is still a "stereo seat". The current high interest in binaural processing is for headphone presentation.

I currently have 7 channels, three fronts in the normal locations, two sides that have been located at around +/- 60 deg - i.e. what is called the "front -wide" location, and two rears at around +/- 135 deg. This suits my personal listening preferences, where envelopment is given priority over the appearance of an occasional gunshot or special effect off to the side. I have tired of "blockbuster" films where loudness and special effects compensate for limp story lines and character development. This is a new setup in a new dwelling, and I may not bother with elevation loudspeakers this time - for much the same reason. The key to a truly compelling listening experience is properly set up multiple subwoofers that tame room resonances. Bass is about 30% of the overall impression of sound quality.

I have been fortunate to have had two wives that appreciated the acoustic and visual results sufficiently to accept that multiple loudspeakers are part of achieving it. In terms of "selling" the need, I have found that apart from a few movies, that there are several compelling and very entertaining music concert videos that most people have never experienced. A large video display and multichannel sound with multiple subs are the enablers. My Kaleidescape collection of videos contains a high percentage of concerts and I enjoy playing "disc jockey" with it, extracting musical selections from concerts and movies. It is quality entertainment.