If buying more than 2 speakers, what multichannel setups are good for music?

[neRok]

I already have a pair of studio-monitors for stereo music playback, and with all the sales that are going on at the moment, I'm thinking about buying a 3rd in case I ever want to use them for home theater duties (in LCR config). And if I have 3, I could also try out mid-side stereo playback. So of course I start to consider that if 3 is good, maybe 4 is better? Or 5? But where does it stop? And what can I even do with 10 speakers?

So what can I do with stereo music if I have (n) many speakers, and what if atmos is brought in later?...

• 4 speakers: 2 fronts + 2 rears (or sides)? 3 fronts + 1 rear?
• 5 speakers: "5.x" is the obvious answer, which is 3 fronts + 2 surrounds afaik. But what about 2 fronts + 2 sides + 1 rear?
  And for "atmos", would 5 matching fronts be a good idea (3 low + 2 high)? Or is 5 matching low level speakers a better idea?
• 6 speakers: Might not be a worthwhile amount? But options could be 3 front + 2 side + 1 rear. Or 2+2+2.
• 7 speakers: Also maybe not a worthwhile amount? But could do 3+2+2.
• 8 speakers: Nah.
• 9 speakers: Good for 5.4.x atmos.
• 10 speakers: Don't really see the point lol. But how about 2 stacks of 5 speakers working like line arrays?

Are there any options in that range I haven't considered?

So anyway, I'm pretty set on getting 3, because the front 3 is often very important, whilst all the surround/roof speakers are less-so. But I still wonder if getting 4 or 5 total can open up some worthwile possibilites? What do you think?

 

[dualazmak]

I would like to highly recommend you consider going into fully active PC(or Mac)-DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier audio setup with multichannel DAC (like OKTO DAC8PRO) where all the SP drivers shall be directly driven by each of the dedicated amplifiers with completely eliminating passive LCR network and passive attenuators (amazing SQ improvement will be achieved!)

If you would be interested in an example of such fully active multichannel system, you would please refer to my latest system setup shared in post #931 on my project thread.

 

[neRok]

I would like to highly recommend you consider going into fully active PC(or Mac)-DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier audio setup with multichannel DAC (like OKTO DAC8PRO) where all the SP drivers shall be directly driven by each of the dedicated amplifiers with completely eliminating passive LCR network and passive attenuators (amazing SQ improvement will be achieved!)

If you would be interested in an example of such fully active multichannel system, you would please refer to my latest system setup shared in post #931 on my project thread.

Yer, that's the plan. I will process the stereo signal on a PC, and then send each speaker a custom signal. Right now I can do 4 channel output, but I'm only using 3 (for 2.1 setup), so doing 3.1 or 4.0 is not a big deal.

 

[ZolaIII]

For music stereo 2.2 setup to or directly under mains. With high crossovers @ 120 Hz for the bass transition (105 Hz) to be contained above it. I recommend the same regarding PC and going up to 6 (or even 8) is easy and relatively cheap with internal audio card's. 4 independent chenels is of course enough for 2.2 and most folks won't use more anyway. What would you get when done properly? Half of bottom octave (vs one sub) more and better DR headroom in low bass with simeles equal loudness compensation transition's and stressed out mains with better performance where they really need it (upper bass and mids). What stays to be done even afterwards? Parallel tweeters or supper tweeters so you extend the reception angle sweat spot coverage (little to no rollout). Music is stereo but you can do plenty to improve reception of those two chenels and use bunch of speakers (with lots of work and some brain's) to get there. And with distance it gets more complicated (long throw horns and split subs) but remains the same regarding signal. So in the complex large space it can be a lot of speakers but still to two chenels signal and for the sake of it. Music won't really get multichannel in our life time at least very great majority of what I consider worth listening to in the first place. Finding a good source (good DR and done good) is more important if and when you can.

 

[dualazmak]

For music stereo 2.2 setup to or directly under mains. With high crossovers @ 120 Hz for the bass transition (105 Hz) to be contained above it. I recommend the same regarding PC and going up to 6 (or even 8) is easy and relatively cheap with internal audio card's. 4 independent chenels is of course enough for 2.2 and most folks won't use more anyway. What would you get when done properly? Half of bottom octave (vs one sub) more and better DR headroom in low bass with simeles equal loudness compensation transition's and stressed out mains with better performance where they really need it (upper bass and mids). What stays to be done even afterwards? Parallel tweeters or supper tweeters so you extend the reception angle sweat spot coverage (little to no rollout). Music is stereo but you can do plenty to improve reception of those two chenels and use bunch of speakers (with lots of work and some brain's) to get there. And with distance it gets more complicated (long throw horns and split subs) but remains the same regarding signal. So in the complex large space it can be a lot of speakers but still to two chenels signal and for the sake of it. Music won't really get multichannel in our life time at least very great majority of what I consider worth listening to in the first place. Finding a good source (good DR and done good) is more important if and when you can.

Yes, I essentially agree with you!

Regarding your point of (I read your word "sweat" as "sweet");

Parallel tweeters or supper tweeters so you extend the reception angle sweat spot coverage (little to no rollout).

My rather primitive but really effective approach in my project would be of your reference and interest, I assume;
A new series of audio experiments on reflective wide-3D dispersion of super-tweeter sound using random-surface hard-heavy material:
Part-1_ Background, experimental settings, initial preliminary listening tests: #912
Part-2_ Comparison of catalogue specifications of metal horn super-tweeter (ST) FOSTEX T925A and YAMAHA Beryllium dome tweeter (TW) JA-0513; start of intensive listening sessions with wide-3D reflective dispersion of ST sound: #921
Part-3_ Listening evaluation of sound stage (sound image) using excellent-recording-quality lute duet tracks: #926
Part-3.1_ Listening evaluation of sound stage (sound image) using excellent-recording-quality jazz trio album: #927
Part-4_ Provisional conclusion to use Case-2 reverse reflective dispersion setting in default daily music listening: #929

As for your another important suggestion of;

Finding a good source (good DR and done good) is more important if and when you can.

Yes, it would be always indispensable establish/keep our (OP @neRok's) own consistent "Audio Reference/Sampler Music Playlist" consists of various excellent-recording-quality music tracks selected from our own preferable genres/categories which should be used all the way through our audio exploration/journey.

Just for your reference, I have my own such playlist consists of 60 tracks (ref. here also), as shared/discussed on my independent thread;
- An Attempt Sharing Reference Quality Music Playlist: at least a portion and/or whole track being analyzed by 3D color spectrum of Adobe Audition

 

[Sig.Rossi]

I am not an expert at all. But in my L-shaped room I like an all stereo setup coming from 4 speakers, a pair at each end of the L and listening position in the corner of the L a lot.

 

[ZolaIII]

@dualazmak
Well it's not primitive, I know you did it, read it before and think we even discussed it before including sliding elevation in upper highs. Did a bit of digging through now rare ex Yu music recorded in last 60 years or so my self for last two three years and had some catches. I even do a bit of sonar room reverb but for movies with very old direct show filters (Sonitus FX), mixer for it also nice (for normalisation) but that's about it in my small room. Don't feal a need to go over 2.2 at least not with space I have. Have a nice time.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Are there any options in that range I haven't considered?

Sure but the determination should be guided by the available content source formats and some you mention do not exist. I suggest you target 5.0 to start.

 

[dualazmak]

Well it's not primitive, I know you did it, read it before and think we even discussed it before including sliding elevation in upper highs.

Thank you for your kind response; yes, I remember we discussed it before.
My intention on this thread is that I do hope our communication again here would be somewhat valuable and interesting for OP @neRok.

 

[Looneybomber]

I may misunderstand the question or goal.

You want to take a 2ch signal, upmix it to X channels, and that’s it?

Simple. Buy X identical speakers that you like the sound of. Maybe that’s seven towers if you like the sound of them. As for where they are placed, it depends on what upmixing codec you use and how many channels.

Mission accomplished.

 

[Dimifoot]

5.2 to start.
7.2.4 later, its the sweet spot for most rooms

 

[ZolaIII]

Thank you for your kind response; yes, I remember we discussed it before.
My intention on this thread is that I do hope our communication again here would be somewhat valuable and interesting for OP @neRok.

Thing is more you observe the signal in recording materials you understand better what can/need to be improved. It's not that I didn't play with 5.1 setup's in the past it's that it doesn't do anything for stereo music, it's harder to tune and costs a lot if you want to do it good. With how many drivers you can achieve really good; response, full octave coverage, SPL smoth transition, coverage, distance... depends on many factors but for average home user to 1~3 m a pair of 6~7" two way speakers and pair of 10~12 subs in medium room (5~6m long) should be good enough (to a 88 dB normalised programme). So at least there way per chenel. No particular need even for dedicated midrange driver in it's own enclosure nor it would improve much of anything (when cut so high). You can always couple same drivers to get more SPL and start with one's that satisfactory can sustain more (especially important for lets say tweeters on somercial home/studio to PA speakers) to start with but I don't think that's a concern hire. Mentioning it as Andy used to say for that Fostex one's how it's bright as a sun (elaborating later how it refers to it's sustainable SPL).

 

[neRok]

I may misunderstand the question or goal.

You want to take a 2ch signal, upmix it to X channels, and that’s it?

Simple. Buy X identical speakers that you like the sound of. Maybe that’s seven towers if you like the sound of them. As for where they are placed, it depends on what upmixing codec you use and how many channels.

Mission accomplished.

I'm thinking beyond basic upmixing. More like how Atmos works with "speakers in 3D space" versus simple multi-channel like 5.1 with "speakers around you on a 2D plane". And then I'm thinking of all the different timing related "trickery" that's possible, especially by products like Dirac ART. So an idea for LCR could be using the center for "directly" playing >300Hz, and for <300Hz using it in cardioid alignment to tighten up the bass from the L+R speakers.

 

[krabapple]

I'm thinking beyond basic upmixing. More like how Atmos works with "speakers in 3D space" versus simple multi-channel like 5.1 with "speakers around you on a 2D plane". And then I'm thinking of all the different timing related "trickery" that's possible, especially by products like Dirac ART. So an idea for LCR could be using the center for "directly" playing >300Hz, and for <300Hz using it in cardioid alignment to tighten up the bass from the L+R speakers.

But...afaict, because some of this thread just seems bizarre...you are still talking about upmixing 'stereo' music?

Meanwhle, there's lots of content now which has already been mixed for multichannel playback arrays.

 

[Looneybomber]

I'm thinking beyond basic upmixing. More like how Atmos works with "speakers in 3D space" versus simple multi-channel like 5.1 with "speakers around you on a 2D plane". And then I'm thinking of all the different timing related "trickery" that's possible, especially by products like Dirac ART. So an idea for LCR could be using the center for "directly" playing >300Hz, and for <300Hz using it in cardioid alignment to tighten up the bass from the L+R speakers.

So you want to write your own upmixing codec, you want an inferior center that cannot do male vocals, and you want cardioid left/right speakers? That juice may not be worth the squeeze but it sounds like an interesting winter project.