Studio Monitors & The Circle of Confusion- What We Know/Don’t Know

[lowkeyoperations]

I’ve just put forward what I think are the challenges in the COC requiring a new standard.

I’ve also put forward an example of Slate VSX headphones previously, which do enable the producer and listener to hear the same thing, as they accommodate different ear canal sizes to tune them all through software to provide the same objective auditory experience to everyone. This is a $500 system that will let you hear what the producer heard when they did the mix.

VSX is infinitely cheaper and simpler.
And if you buy a pair and contact producers using them, you can hear exactly what they heard when they made their decisions.

But it is still a niche in a niche IMO as there isn’t a huge market that really feels like they need to know exactly what the artist heard at the time.

 

[dfuller]

Not clear your statement does much to refute the basis for the circle of confusion. Not all studios are nearfield and the point is that the differences in equipment and its application affect consistency. Despite this inconsistency, the defense seems to be that many recordings still turn out quite good and implies that no further improvement is needed. This difference in perspective is comparable to how a subjectivist listener approaches the hobby versus a more objective listener. So can see why many ASR members struggle with a seemingly subjective aspect of the production of sound. This is not my personal opinion nor do I think it is a simple binary difference, but my observation as I observe the ongoing discussion of this topic.

As a more discriminating listener, I do like the possibility that future music releases could support editions that are tailored for more capable sound systems. Would also need a THX-like reference for what qualifies as a capable sound system.

I think it's more the requirements for a professional system don't necessarily match those of a domestic system.

To wit, there is less emphasis on perfect off axis behavior; studios generally have early reflections heavily absorbed, so perfectly even off axis is less important even in far field.

Yes, axial should be flat enough. But generally an emphasis on low distortion and dynamic compression is (or at least should be) present, rather to a greater degree than in a lot of domestic speakers.

 

[RickS]

I think it's more the requirements for a professional system don't necessarily match those of a domestic system.

Am sure this is a point of potential confusion for some but seems a diversion to me. There is more potential commonality than less. Given the nature of a studio, the ability to conform to standards would seem greater than the variability of individual living situations. Seems likely that anyone serious consumer would be more likely to adapt the studio standards in pursuit of coming closer to the original recording conditions. Some already attempt to do so.

To wit, there is less emphasis on perfect off axis behavior; studios generally have early reflections heavily absorbed, so perfectly even off axis is less important even in far field.

Yes, axial should be flat enough. But generally an emphasis on low distortion and dynamic compression is (or at least should be) present, rather to a greater degree than in a lot of domestic speakers.

In my field, the ultimate product goal is to exceed customer expectations. Agree there are existing differences and economics will play a role as well. Rather than focus on current technology differences, I think it is important to step back and consider what the future goal should be.

 

[Blockader]

I think it's more the requirements for a professional system don't necessarily match those of a domestic system.

How do you determine that? For example, if I mix in an extremely damped room, how can we be confident it will translate well to an average domestic listening space? Are you speaking mainly from experience, or is there an objective basis for this? I am genuinely curious.

 

[RickS]

Note that this topic is a spin-off from the ATC topic, where the discussion about ATC speakers constantly got diverted to the questing to what extend the knowledge we have about speakers used to enjoy music in domestic rooms also applies to music production in studio environments. That endless debate (5542 posts!) made it clear that there are lots of assumptions but no hard evidence. Since the purpose of this thread is to close that gap, the topic needs to be approached with an open mind. If we get no further then finger-pointing ("you need to proof this and that"), then this topic has no reason to exist I believe.

My goal was to give the ATC thread more focus and stick to the OP's goal. The broader subject here is definitely a thread that is a more about a journey than destination.

Agree this journey can be frustrating but does not mean it cannot be useful or productive.

 

[Floyd Toole]

This is a chewy discussion about an important topic - I created the "circle of confusion" so . . . I'm biased.

The lack of universally accepted industry standards for loudspeakers and rooms has been discussed, but I don't recall anyone mentioning the ITU and EBU standards that are used as frequent references by some European professional loudspeaker manufacturers, recording control room designers and calibrators, and academics seeking justification for using whatever rooms and loudspeakers they have. The ITU recommendation is also mentioned by Dolby in its recent recommendations for setting up Atmos music mixing facilities--a document embarrassingly ignorant of acoustic science.

The near-field/far-field debate is a non-issue. It has been convincingly shown that even in typical domestic (moderately reflective) rooms, from the perspectives of sound localization and sound quality, two ears and a brain put greatest importance on the first-arriving, direct, sound: the on-axis/listening window curves in a spinorama. In reflective rooms the off-axis sounds are a secondary factor to be considered, but in acoustically dead rooms (as recommended by ITU and EBU) and in near-field listening the direct sound is physically the dominant factor as well as being the perceptually dominant factor. Any competently engineered loudspeaker should perform well in either listening situation, although the experiences will differ because of reflections.

I have argued in my books that the ITU and EBU documents are seriously in need of revision. For the website of the upcoming 4th edition (publication date Oct 28) I wrote the article I attach for your information and thoughts. It is long - lots of words - which takes the fun out of it, but I sense that there are some serious minds in this forum, and I would like to hear your reactions.

As for what people these days are listening to. The notion that neutral sound reproduction is the exclusive domain of wealthy high-end audiophiles and audio professionals is simply wrong. It has come as a pleasant surprise to me that meaningful measurements including the spinorama are now used by many big name manufacturers in all areas of audio. In the website I will be showing spinoramas on a few very popular $100-$200 "smart" home WiFi units, some tiny bluetooth units, TV sound bars, and numerous consumer and pro loudspeakers of prices from about $500/pair to $86,000/pair. It is remarkable how similar they are in linear behavior. Obviously small loudspeakers cannot compete at high sound levels. but basic sound quality is still there. Meaningful measurements and active loudspeakers with integrated EQ have changed the loudspeaker industry. Fundamentally neutral sound is clearly the common denominator. The "bad old days" are no longer. I have heard a few "palatable" clock radios in hotels - they used to be intolerable. Car audio has made great strides, and some branded premium systems provide quality entertainment. Science has been at work there as well.

So, if you can find time and energy, read the attached document and feel free to comment on it.

 

[dfuller]

How do you determine that? For example, if I mix in an extremely damped room, how can we be confident it will translate well to an average domestic listening space? Are you speaking mainly from experience, or is there an objective basis for this? I am genuinely curious.

Objectively speaking it is easier for an engineer to "design in" spatial cues via reverb, panning etc with a much lower reverb time than a typical domestic space - a more reflective room tends to mask reverb etc which makes it harder to get those levels where is desired. A consequence of that much reduced reverb time and level is that off-axis behavior takes something of a back seat, which is part of why so many seemingly less-than-modern designs are so common. That's not to say you'll never see speakers with smooth off-axis behavior designed in, obviously Neumann and Genelec among others are especially famous for this.

The near-field/far-field debate is a non-issue. It has been convincingly shown that even in typical domestic (moderately reflective) rooms, from the perspectives of sound localization and sound quality, two ears and a brain put greatest importance on the first-arriving, direct, sound: the on-axis/listening window curves in a spinorama. In reflective rooms the off-axis sounds are a secondary factor to be considered, but in acoustically dead rooms (as recommended by ITU and EBU) and in near-field listening the direct sound is physically the dominant factor as well as being the perceptually dominant factor. Any competently engineered loudspeaker should perform well in either listening situation, although the experiences will differ because of reflections.

This is all accurate. Will comment on the attached file later.

 

[JRowland]

This is a chewy discussion about an important topic - I created the "circle of confusion" so . . . I'm biased.

The lack of universally accepted industry standards for loudspeakers and rooms has been discussed, but I don't recall anyone mentioning the ITU and EBU standards that are used as frequent references by some European professional loudspeaker manufacturers, recording control room designers and calibrators, and academics seeking justification for using whatever rooms and loudspeakers they have. The ITU recommendation is also mentioned by Dolby in its recent recommendations for setting up Atmos music mixing facilities--a document embarrassingly ignorant of acoustic science.

The near-field/far-field debate is a non-issue. It has been convincingly shown that even in typical domestic (moderately reflective) rooms, from the perspectives of sound localization and sound quality, two ears and a brain put greatest importance on the first-arriving, direct, sound: the on-axis/listening window curves in a spinorama. In reflective rooms the off-axis sounds are a secondary factor to be considered, but in acoustically dead rooms (as recommended by ITU and EBU) and in near-field listening the direct sound is physically the dominant factor as well as being the perceptually dominant factor. Any competently engineered loudspeaker should perform well in either listening situation, although the experiences will differ because of reflections.

I have argued in my books that the ITU and EBU documents are seriously in need of revision. For the website of the upcoming 4th edition (publication date Oct 28) I wrote the article I attach for your information and thoughts. It is long - lots of words - which takes the fun out of it, but I sense that there are some serious minds in this forum, and I would like to hear your reactions.

As for what people these days are listening to. The notion that neutral sound reproduction is the exclusive domain of wealthy high-end audiophiles and audio professionals is simply wrong. It has come as a pleasant surprise to me that meaningful measurements including the spinorama are now used by many big name manufacturers in all areas of audio. In the website I will be showing spinoramas on a few very popular $100-$200 "smart" home WiFi units, some tiny bluetooth units, TV sound bars, and numerous consumer and pro loudspeakers of prices from about $500/pair to $86,000/pair. It is remarkable how similar they are in linear behavior. Obviously small loudspeakers cannot compete at high sound levels. but basic sound quality is still there. Meaningful measurements and active loudspeakers with integrated EQ have changed the loudspeaker industry. Fundamentally neutral sound is clearly the common denominator. The "bad old days" are no longer. I have heard a few "palatable" clock radios in hotels - they used to be intolerable. Car audio has made great strides, and some branded premium systems provide quality entertainment. Science has been at work there as well.

So, if you can find time and energy, read the attached document and feel free to comment on it.

As a non-scientist average Joe audio lover I appreciate the knowledge you share here and elsewhere, I seem to always gain new insight after digestion. Thank you for touching on the subject of "spatial bass", this is a new concept to me that I learned about here on ASR somewhat recently. Thanks to @Thomas Lund for giving me a good track to try and probably just some luck in my room I am able to hear/feel this and I have been enjoying experimenting for maximum effect. Different for sure, preference would be hard to say for me. Trying to figure out a preference luckily for me has been unnecessary as I enjoy both summed mono in the chest/head and decorrelated sort of floating around me and I get both and it sounds good (to me anyway). The track Thomas pointed out in the Bass and Subwoofers thread (Billie Eillish "I didn't lose your number") has a steady mono bass line throughout and then decorrelated bass for effects. To me it was instantly noticeable, different, and very cool coming from some boxes in a room. I hope going forward more employees in the recording industry allow for us consumers to enjoy this "different" feeling. Someone as looked up to as you talking about it will hopefully lead to more implementation.

 

[dfuller]

This is a chewy discussion about an important topic - I created the "circle of confusion" so . . . I'm biased.

The lack of universally accepted industry standards for loudspeakers and rooms has been discussed, but I don't recall anyone mentioning the ITU and EBU standards that are used as frequent references by some European professional loudspeaker manufacturers, recording control room designers and calibrators, and academics seeking justification for using whatever rooms and loudspeakers they have. The ITU recommendation is also mentioned by Dolby in its recent recommendations for setting up Atmos music mixing facilities--a document embarrassingly ignorant of acoustic science.

The near-field/far-field debate is a non-issue. It has been convincingly shown that even in typical domestic (moderately reflective) rooms, from the perspectives of sound localization and sound quality, two ears and a brain put greatest importance on the first-arriving, direct, sound: the on-axis/listening window curves in a spinorama. In reflective rooms the off-axis sounds are a secondary factor to be considered, but in acoustically dead rooms (as recommended by ITU and EBU) and in near-field listening the direct sound is physically the dominant factor as well as being the perceptually dominant factor. Any competently engineered loudspeaker should perform well in either listening situation, although the experiences will differ because of reflections.

I have argued in my books that the ITU and EBU documents are seriously in need of revision. For the website of the upcoming 4th edition (publication date Oct 28) I wrote the article I attach for your information and thoughts. It is long - lots of words - which takes the fun out of it, but I sense that there are some serious minds in this forum, and I would like to hear your reactions.

As for what people these days are listening to. The notion that neutral sound reproduction is the exclusive domain of wealthy high-end audiophiles and audio professionals is simply wrong. It has come as a pleasant surprise to me that meaningful measurements including the spinorama are now used by many big name manufacturers in all areas of audio. In the website I will be showing spinoramas on a few very popular $100-$200 "smart" home WiFi units, some tiny bluetooth units, TV sound bars, and numerous consumer and pro loudspeakers of prices from about $500/pair to $86,000/pair. It is remarkable how similar they are in linear behavior. Obviously small loudspeakers cannot compete at high sound levels. but basic sound quality is still there. Meaningful measurements and active loudspeakers with integrated EQ have changed the loudspeaker industry. Fundamentally neutral sound is clearly the common denominator. The "bad old days" are no longer. I have heard a few "palatable" clock radios in hotels - they used to be intolerable. Car audio has made great strides, and some branded premium systems provide quality entertainment. Science has been at work there as well.

So, if you can find time and energy, read the attached document and feel free to comment on it.

Okay, reading through the attached document now.

Your point about the "acoustic magnifying glass" is exactly what I mentioned earlier on in this thread - the absorption is dual-functionality. Primarily it's meant to reduce masking when artificial spatial cues are being baked in, with the side benefit of helping reduce the problems with, erm... not great off axis response, let's say. The problem I think with nearfield is that it doesn't reflect how most people listen, and the speakers sized for nearfield use tend to be rather limited in terms of either FR bandwidth or dynamic capabilities, unless fairly expensive.

I will mention - I personally consider it a good thing to kill bass reverberation as much as is reasonably possible; it's a royal PITA to do and requires truly heroic efforts (full-wall membranes, multiple feet of pink fluffy insulation for velocity absorbers, that kind of thing) but it makes mixing much easier - the impulse and sustained LF elements are easier to pick apart from one another.

As far as I care for consumption of music there need not be any sort of standard, and I'm not sure the EBU standard is necessarily ideal for all production based tasks. It gets a lot right - speakers should be reasonably neutral, reverb should be curtailed to a reasonable standard - but it gets stuff wrong too. The 1/3 octave smoothing as you mentioned is damn near useless for all the data that gets lost in the smoothing "noise", and that standard should probably be more like 1/12 to 1/20 octave somewhere. +/-2dB is a pretty fair and reasonable target IMHO - and for the time that standard came out (late 90s), it's a fairly high standard.

 

[Rettica]

Primarily it's meant to reduce masking when artificial spatial cues are being baked in, with the side benefit of helping reduce the problems with, erm... not great off axis response, let's say

also lets not forget that absorption helps a lot with improving frequency response, especially in the lows

 

[Floyd Toole]

I will mention - I personally consider it a good thing to kill bass reverberation as much as is reasonably possible; it's a royal PITA to do and requires truly heroic efforts (full-wall membranes, multiple feet of pink fluffy insulation for velocity absorbers, that kind of thing) but it makes mixing much easier - the impulse and sustained LF elements are easier to pick apart from one another.

There is absolutely no doubt that small room resonances must be controlled. You mention the traditional method of passive absorption, which as you correctly point out is a. "royal PITA". This is the reason I looked for and found an alternative solution many years ago in one of my homes - multiple subwoofers to manipulate - attenuate and amplify specific room resonances without the need for passive absorption. Of course it only works for reproduced sounds. Turn the music off and the room is as it was, but does that matter? It would if one was using the room as a recording environment as well as a playback room, as happens in many combo setups.
I hired Todd Welti into the research group at Harman and he applied his Matlab and acoustical skills to finding more general solutions for rectangular and non-rectangular rooms. It is in his AES papers and my books, with both of us expanding further on the topic in the 4th edition. Multiple subs reduce seat-to-seat variations, and increase system efficiency which is a cost and distortion reducing bonus. It is a different kind of PITA, but one that does not degrade the visual landscape. I have enjoyed clean, tight, resonance-free bass for many years without bass traps.

Of course, there are also active bass absorbers now, which a small and very effective, but expensive. Like passive absorbers, they reduce system efficiency.

With bass accounting for about 30% of our overall impression of sound quality it seems foolhardy to ignore it, yet many do. EQ alone is useful, but only for one person in one location and only if it is done properly.

 

[dfuller]

There is absolutely no doubt that small room resonances must be controlled. You mention the traditional method of passive absorption, which as you correctly point out is a. "royal PITA". This is the reason I looked for and found an alternative solution many years ago in one of my homes - multiple subwoofers to manipulate - attenuate and amplify specific room resonances without the need for passive absorption. Of course it only works for reproduced sounds. Turn the music off and the room is as it was, but does that matter? It would if one was using the room as a recording environment as well as a playback room, as happens in many combo setups.
I hired Todd Welti into the research group at Harman and he applied his Matlab and acoustical skills to finding more general solutions for rectangular and non-rectangular rooms. It is in his AES papers and my books, with both of us expanding further on the topic in the 4th edition. Multiple subs reduce seat-to-seat variations, and increase system efficiency which is a cost and distortion reducing bonus. It is a different kind of PITA, but one that does not degrade the visual landscape. I have enjoyed clean, tight, resonance-free bass for many years without bass traps.

Of course, there are also active bass absorbers now, which a small and very effective, but expensive. Like passive absorbers, they reduce system efficiency.

With bass accounting for about 30% of our overall impression of sound quality it seems foolhardy to ignore it, yet many do. EQ alone is useful, but only for one person in one location and only if it is done properly.

I agree generally that a combination of passive and/or active absorbers and some kind of distributed bass array is probably the best approach. That said in a dedicated critical listening space where you really only need to tune for one seat in the house, I don't think sub-transition EQ is necessarily a non-option - as long as you're being smart about it, and are also controlling the resonances in other ways (notched modal peaks still ring, just at lower levels, as you know).

I wish there were cheaper active absorbers. They're ludicrously expensive, but they do work pretty well and take up a whole lot less space than big passive pressure absorbers. Alas, until someone that isn't PSI is making them, I don't see that happening.

 

[Floyd Toole]

Alas, until someone that isn't PSI is making them, I don't see that happening.

I don't know about price, but these guys have been doing it for many years: https://bagend.com/products/series/active-bass-trap-by-bag/

 

[TimVG]

This is a chewy discussion about an important topic - I created the "circle of confusion" so . . . I'm biased.

The lack of universally accepted industry standards for loudspeakers and rooms has been discussed, but I don't recall anyone mentioning the ITU and EBU standards that are used as frequent references by some European professional loudspeaker manufacturers, recording control room designers and calibrators, and academics seeking justification for using whatever rooms and loudspeakers they have. The ITU recommendation is also mentioned by Dolby in its recent recommendations for setting up Atmos music mixing facilities--a document embarrassingly ignorant of acoustic science.

The near-field/far-field debate is a non-issue. It has been convincingly shown that even in typical domestic (moderately reflective) rooms, from the perspectives of sound localization and sound quality, two ears and a brain put greatest importance on the first-arriving, direct, sound: the on-axis/listening window curves in a spinorama. In reflective rooms the off-axis sounds are a secondary factor to be considered, but in acoustically dead rooms (as recommended by ITU and EBU) and in near-field listening the direct sound is physically the dominant factor as well as being the perceptually dominant factor. Any competently engineered loudspeaker should perform well in either listening situation, although the experiences will differ because of reflections.

I have argued in my books that the ITU and EBU documents are seriously in need of revision. For the website of the upcoming 4th edition (publication date Oct 28) I wrote the article I attach for your information and thoughts. It is long - lots of words - which takes the fun out of it, but I sense that there are some serious minds in this forum, and I would like to hear your reactions.

As for what people these days are listening to. The notion that neutral sound reproduction is the exclusive domain of wealthy high-end audiophiles and audio professionals is simply wrong. It has come as a pleasant surprise to me that meaningful measurements including the spinorama are now used by many big name manufacturers in all areas of audio. In the website I will be showing spinoramas on a few very popular $100-$200 "smart" home WiFi units, some tiny bluetooth units, TV sound bars, and numerous consumer and pro loudspeakers of prices from about $500/pair to $86,000/pair. It is remarkable how similar they are in linear behavior. Obviously small loudspeakers cannot compete at high sound levels. but basic sound quality is still there. Meaningful measurements and active loudspeakers with integrated EQ have changed the loudspeaker industry. Fundamentally neutral sound is clearly the common denominator. The "bad old days" are no longer. I have heard a few "palatable" clock radios in hotels - they used to be intolerable. Car audio has made great strides, and some branded premium systems provide quality entertainment. Science has been at work there as well.

So, if you can find time and energy, read the attached document and feel free to comment on it.

The point you make about neutrality becoming mainstream is really important. For a long time, “neutral loudspeakers” were assumed to be an esoteric high-end or pro-audio thing, but that’s no longer true. Even at the mass-market level ($100 smart speakers, bluetooth speakers, soundbars) we’re seeing much more neutral responses than in the past. It’s good acoustic design combined with clever use DSP/EQ/Limiters... Together they’ve made neutrality essentially the baseline, so consumers today are hearing something much closer to good sound instead of the wildly uneven responses we used to accept.

Another big shift is the advent of high-quality measurement data from independent reviewers. Spinoramas and other standardized tests are now much more widely available, which means manufacturers are increasingly “put out there” with nowhere to hide. Designs that don’t measure well are quickly exposed, and that transparency reinforces the trend toward neutrality.

So I agree the ITU/EBU standards are due for revision. If neutrality is already widespread, the standards should reflect how modern loudspeakers actually behave and how people actually listen. Replacing 1/3-octave pink noise with spinorama-style data would be a major step forward, and the room guidance could be modernized to separate different purposes: deadened, reflection-controlled spaces may still be useful for mixing or controlled testing, but they don’t make sense as the reference for how content will translate to consumers. A revised framework that distinguishes these cases, and acknowledges that controlled reflections and proper bass management matter more than strict RT targets, would be far more in line with current science.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I wish there were cheaper active absorbers. They're ludicrously expensive, but they do work pretty well and take up a whole lot less space than big passive pressure absorbers. Alas, until someone that isn't PSI is making them, I don't see that happening.

I don't know about price, but these guys have been doing it for many years: https://bagend.com/products/series/active-bass-trap-by-bag/

These are functionally quite different although, in some cases, the result might be similar. The BagEnd devices are manually tuned in situ to a specific frequency while the PSI devices operate more broadly, in my experience:
AVAA C214 Report
Bag End Report
And, yeah, the PSI units are expensive but they are not unappealing and they are effective, even when the music is not playing!

 

[Tovarich007]

Many thanks to Floyd Toole, whose posts give us a remarkable view about what really matters in audio perception and design.

 

[sigbergaudio]

@Floyd Toole The paper you shared (the ITU/EBU commentary) is interesting, it corresponds to my own understanding of the papers. I also agree with your reflections on what should be improved.

I noted specifically this paragraph that has caused me some puzzlement as well;

"The illustration in the EBU document shows a horizontal straight linethrough the middle of the tolerance range, described as “the mean value of the levels of the 1/3-octave bands with center frequencies from 200 Hz to 4 kHz”, and the line runs from below 40 Hz12to 16 kHz. Implying, if not stating, that this is the target performance. It isn’t or should not be.The calculated average level over the 200 Hz to 4 kHz range is most likely a means of positioning the measured curve within the tolerance range."

After some discussion with other people involved in the studio industry, my understanding is the same as yours. The line is a reference to the tolerance band, as measured in the 200hz to 4k range. So a sloping response fitting within the tolerance band is within the standard. The illustration is just very misleading, making it easy to interpret the straight line across the entire spectrum as a target.

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

So, if you can find time and energy, read the attached document and feel free to comment on it.

I found the article intriguing, but it finally touches on an issue that’s been driving me crazy: the persistent 80 Hz crossover myth in audio setups.


The article notes that an 80 Hz crossover frequency is commonly recommended.
But (finally?) it also mentions stereo bass as a concern, stating the 60–80 Hz region.


This is a step forward, but the focus on “stereo bass” misses the mark. Any stereo bass is taken care of during mixing. But surround mixes (have to) contain uncorrelated bass in the surround channels at least in that range.
The real issue in most consumer surround systems is that surround channels are cut off at 80 Hz, redirecting critical high-energy localization cues (60–80 Hz) from rear and side speakers to a single subwoofer, often placed on the opposite side of the room. This collapses the spatial soundstage and undermines immersive audio.


The problem stems from the outdated belief that humans can’t localize bass at all. In reality, the 60–80 Hz range carries essential directional cues vital for convincing surround sound reproduction. The article should shift attention to this widespread issue rather than stereo bass, which is less critical in most setups.


Additionally, subwoofer distance to the listener also affects the perceived sound quality, while established setup theories ignore the distance competely. For now, raising awareness that 60–80 Hz contains key localization cues would be a major step toward improving surround audio setups.

 

[kyuu]

The real issue in most consumer surround systems is that surround channels are cut off at 80 Hz, redirecting critical high-energy localization cues (60–80 Hz) from rear and side speakers to a single subwoofer, often placed on the opposite side of the room. This collapses the spatial soundstage and undermines immersive audio.

Source?

In any case, most domestic surround setups (and probably a lot of commercial ones as well) are not going to be using full-range speakers to the sides/rears, so the bass is getting redirected to a subwoofer regardless.

 

[JRowland]

Source?

I'm not him but here is a good presentation on the subject.

I enjoy experiencing it and not just in stereo so I am using surrounds that dig deeper. If I didn't care I could still cross over at 80 hz and not have any problems so I'd prefer the folks doing the recording preserve it for the folks who enjoy it. I can't see a downside from an end users perspective to wanting this in the recording process, no one has to take advantage of it but more options (to me) are a good thing.