What to look for in surround speaker?

[polmuaddib]

For modern surround systems with height speakers and possibly two or more pairs of surround speakers, what should be criteria for choosing them? I know that for good old 5.1 it was a good thing that surrounds have wide dispersion and bipole speakers were a good option.
Let's start with ear height surrounds. Should side and back surrounds be the same or not? It was already discussed that surrounds needn't perfectly match front speakers.
Should surrounds have wide or narrow dispersion?
Low end extension is obviously not that important, since subs are picking that up...
Should sensitivity and impedance be matched to fronts?
If in the end, we are not that sensitive to surround speakers, should we just choose convenient speakers? Whether they are pretty or invisible like in-wall speakers?
And finally what is expected of height speakers? There is even less information there in Atmos and other immersion mixes. Is it enough just to have them?
Thanks

 

[JeffS7444]

I am no expert here, but when I decided to add Atmos speakers to my small-room system (thrift-store Klipsch Chorus IIIs, Fostex mini subwoofer), I bought a couple of really inexpensive ceiling-mount units from Parts Express which cost less than $5/each. These are plastic, surface mount units containing a small full-range driver. But they fit my space nicely, and were angled downwards perfectly for my room. When running Audyssey room correction, I can hear that they have far less frequency response range than even the little Chorus IIIs, and frankly sound more like mini PA speakers by themselves. But they work surprisingly well as height speakers! Have been impressed by how a good Atmos soundtrack really does seem more like a coherent sound field than your typical 5.1-channel sound. I wouldn't doubt I could have done better by returning to the thrift store and buying any number of small and inexpensive plastic speakers by the likes of Sony, JVC, Cambridge Soundworks, etc, the sorts sold as part of a complete a/v system in a box. Actual output demands on those speakers seem very modest when paired with Apple TV 4K and playing Apple TV+ content including the Tom Hanks movie Greyhound.

 

[Sancus]

For modern surround systems with height speakers and possibly two or more pairs of surround speakers, what should be criteria for choosing them? I know that for good old 5.1 it was a good thing that surrounds have wide dispersion and bipole speakers were a good option.
Let's start with ear height surrounds. Should side and back surrounds be the same or not? It was already discussed that surrounds needn't perfectly match front speakers.
Should surrounds have wide or narrow dispersion?

I don't think it's possible to give blanket answers to these questions. A lot depends on use. If we're talking purely about movies, I honestly wouldn't spend a lot on surrounds. Just make sure they're from the same lineup as the fronts so they're reasonably timbre/dispersion matched. Personally I think the biggest problem with low-end surround setups is the center channel. It's usually a mess of a 2-way. I think it really needs to be a coaxial or at least a 3-way that closely timbre matches the L/R, and identical LCR is best. But I know that rules out a lot of options. Now, if we are talking about multi-channel music use, I do think it's more important that the surrounds be of comparable quality to the LCR. There are whole instruments primarily relegated to the surrounds in some recordings.

I don't think there's any need to worry about extremely wide dispersion unless you're building a pretty sizable 3-4 row theatre. And in that case, these days you may be better served by adding front wides so you have 9.x.x instead of 7. Or heck, just go to CBTs so you have the most even SPL over the largest areas. Toole's own home theatre does not use bipoles, nor do the Genelec or 2L benchmark 3D audio setups. On the other hand, if you have a small, difficult room(asymmetrical, other problematic designs), narrower dispersion might be best to avoid as many reflections as possible.

FYI, Toole's book has an entire section on multi-channel audio and home theatre that answers all these questions in detail and others as well, such as room treatment.

 

[Sal1950]

For modern surround systems with height speakers and possibly two or more pairs of surround speakers, what should be criteria for choosing them? I know that for good old 5.1 it was a good thing that surrounds have wide dispersion and bipole speakers were a good option.
Let's start with ear height surrounds. Should side and back surrounds be the same or not? It was already discussed that surrounds needn't perfectly match front speakers.
Should surrounds have wide or narrow dispersion?
Low end extension is obviously not that important, since subs are picking that up...
Should sensitivity and impedance be matched to fronts?
If in the end, we are not that sensitive to surround speakers, should we just choose convenient speakers? Whether they are pretty or invisible like in-wall speakers?
And finally what is expected of height speakers? There is even less information there in Atmos and other immersion mixes. Is it enough just to have them?
Thanks

What's your budget? If unlimited or very high end just go with the biggest and best that will fit your room.
What kind of source material do you want to focus on, movies or music and then if music, what type of music do you listen to. Then what size is your room and seating style? Once these questions are answered I can make an informed recommendation on what to be looking at.
I can answer a few of your starting questions with one answer, all 5 or 7 base channels should use identical speakers if you run a projector with sound transparent screen up front, otherwise a compromise of the closest matched center channel is needed. Anything less than all identical speakers is compromise who's seriousness depends on the source material. Many will object or argue, but let me ask you this, how big a compromise would you accept to use different L & R speakers in a 2 channel stereo system?

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Hmm, having finally managed to get my multichannel Dirac setup working, I am faced by similar questions.

It's a nearfield 4.0 setup, speaker distance ~1m from me.
Front L + R are Focal Aria 906
Surround L + R are ARES Alpha Effect (hand me-down speakers from a friend who upgraded)

Since I am mostly interested in multichannel music, from the responses so far, the best course of action seems to be to employ 2 additional 906 as rear speakers?

 

[polmuaddib]

Thank you for your input.

I already have 11.2 setup with seven base channels and 4 inceiling speakers. Inceiling are cheap Monitor Audio 2 way coaxial design, surrounds are old Focal chorus 726 or something, small towers and for the back I have small Focal chorus surround on wall 2 way speaker. My fronts are much more expensive then other speakers, Avalon Opus Ceramique and they are staying. The rest might change in future. The center speaker is for sale, because i am in the process of building exact clone of Avalon to be the center speaker. Two subs will not change for a while.

I do enjoy multichannel music and i am in constant pusrsuit of it. I equate listening to music and watching movies and find no difference between them. I mean, there are different mixes in movies and music also, but what's good for music should work for movies and vice versa.
I find Atmos ( and DTSX, but there are so few of them) wonderful, but the artists are not using height channels enough. Very few Atmos mixes in movies stand out and have something more then regular mix. But when heights are utilised, it's really great.

My room is the biggest problem, since it is small (5m by 4.7m and 3.15 height) and that is not changing soon.

I am fairly satisfied with my setup. I suspect that I could make it better, but not entirely sure, hence my question. My budget is not fixed, but not unlimited. I also don't need to change all at once...

 

[Sal1950]

Since I am mostly interested in multichannel music, from the responses so far, the best course of action seems to be to employ 2 additional 906 as rear speakers?

Yes, I would agree. Since your focus is music you might ask yourself how closely the front and rears should match. For a Classical music fan who's main music is a basic front soundstage with the rears mainly supplying room ambiance, the exact match between them can be loosened a some. If your more of a pop fan with interests in complete immersive mixes from the likes of Steven Wilson, Alan Parsons, Mark Waldrep, big band stuff from Gordon Goodwin, etc; having the best match possible between all speakers gets very important. They mix for clear soundstage positioning not only across the front but down the side walls and the rooms complete depth.

Should side and back surrounds be the same or not? Should sensitivity and impedance be matched to fronts?

Discussed above.

Should surrounds have wide or narrow dispersion

Do you have a single seat arrangement or a multi-row theater setup. The answer should be fairly obvious.

I know that for good old 5.1 it was a good thing that surrounds have wide dispersion and bipole speakers were a good option.

That bipole idea has mostly faded away. Dolby and others mostly recommend direct radiators.

If in the end, we are not that sensitive to surround speakers, should we just choose convenient speakers? Whether they are pretty or invisible like in-wall speakers?

I think you have gotten the drift that a match between the base speakers is important, how much depending on discussed factors. But never being sure how much your preferences may change over time, I like to say just use identical speakers if at all possible. Then your system will remain top shelf for a long time to come.
Atmos, etc, their demands are much easier and anything that can be ceiling mounted facing down or slightly towards the MLP will work pretty well. Matching the tonal balance closely is a luxury that only those with fairly large wallets can afford, but very nice to have.
FORGET the ceiling bounce stuff.
If your wondering, my my system is outlined here,
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/sals-system.614/
Just MHO

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

Yes, I would agree. Since your focus is music you might ask yourself how closely the front and rears should match. For a Classical music fan who's main music is a basic front soundstage with the rears mainly supplying room ambiance, the exact match between them can be loosened a some.

Well there is a funky record label called TACET, which actually places whole instruments in their own channels.

If you like classical and multichannel, perhaps they are worth checking out.

Thank you for your input. I guess I'll just get another pair of Arias and call it a day. After all it isn't too much of an expense if I can catch another pair on sale.

 

[Teeter]

I don't know about you, but surrounds don't have to be matched with the fronts, same with center channel. My front JBL L/R match pretty close to the Polk Surrounds. Knock yourselves out with having to match. My room is 10X12. My 55" 4K, TV distance is 8 feet from seating and surrounds are just a little behind seating with the tweeters 22" above ear level. For music, I switch to "Virtual" NOT multi channel. I'm mostly a movie watcher in my small room.

 

[Kallekeikon]

Hi,
I work as a film sound mixer, mostly mixing movies for theater, here are some of my thougts.

Should side and back surrounds be the same or not? It was already discussed that surrounds needn't perfectly match front speakers.

In the days when 5.1 ruled the cinema, the surround channels were mostly for soft, ambient sounds: Music reverberation, background ambiance, and the occasional hard FX like bullet whiz, door slam and the ever tiresome helicopter. Up until a decade or so, the surround speakers also had a HP-fliter at about 125Hz, so you had to think twice about what you were putting back there and how those sounds would blend with the front speakers. Having sur. matched speakers matched with the LCR with these movies would be shooting sparrows with a cannon.

As the formats have become grander we have got a better fidelity in the rear part of the venues. 7.1 lets us create a left AND a right stereo pair that especially for music mixing in movie surround is a big leap forward. This lets us pull the music away from the LCR speakers and get a better separation between the music and SFX. This way of mixing has certainly become the case after ATMOS entered the scene.
If you want your HT-setup to as accurately as possible represent what we hear on the dubbing stage, having the same kind of surround speaker is quite important. As the language of mixing steadily evolves, I would think having the surround matched with the front speakers will be more and more important.

But as of now, and probably for a long time. The center channel is the king

 

[polmuaddib]

Thanks. I appreciate it.

 

[Spocko]

For modern surround systems with height speakers and possibly two or more pairs of surround speakers, what should be criteria for choosing them? I know that for good old 5.1 it was a good thing that surrounds have wide dispersion and bipole speakers were a good option.
Let's start with ear height surrounds. Should side and back surrounds be the same or not? It was already discussed that surrounds needn't perfectly match front speakers.
Should surrounds have wide or narrow dispersion?
Low end extension is obviously not that important, since subs are picking that up...
Should sensitivity and impedance be matched to fronts?
If in the end, we are not that sensitive to surround speakers, should we just choose convenient speakers? Whether they are pretty or invisible like in-wall speakers?
And finally what is expected of height speakers? There is even less information there in Atmos and other immersion mixes. Is it enough just to have them?
Thanks

I recently posted this video

with links at the bottom of the video description. Basically, you want controlled directivity and narrow dispersion for 7.1 or 9.1 bed layer setup, and medium dispersion is fine for 5.1 but be wary that wider dispersion will require significantly more wall treatment to control unintended reflections.

 

[Kallekeikon]

Basically, you want controlled directivity and narrow dispersion for 7.1 or 9.1 bed layer setup, and medium dispersion is fine for 5.1 but be wary that wider dispersion will require significantly more wall treatment to control unintended reflections.

The way you juxtapose cinematic emersion and music listening is spot on. Audio is only a part of the movie experience and must be addressed accordingly.
In regards to the dispersion, I would like to chip in that the 7.1 bed is mixed with arrays of surround speaker, sometimes 4-5 or more, outputting the same signal, so what we hear when doing the final mix at the dubbing stage is a very undirected signal. The un-directivity of this kind of setup is actually welcomed since we always try to mix for the back row as well as the audience in the sweetspot.
In a HT setting, you can choose to always sit in the best place and get a high degree of accuracy, but that's not what's heard in finalmix. One of the reasons why you pay 2000$ a day for a dubbing stage IS to get the blurring of speakers in a big room that you don't get in a smaller 1-speaker-per-channel tracklaying room.
The ATMOS objects on the other hand work differently. There you can "zoom" one sound into a discrete speaker. But as of todays esthetical standards, the 7.1 bed will be the most important in achieving the immersive effect.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

If you want your HT-setup to as accurately as possible represent what we hear on the dubbing stage, having the same kind of surround speaker is quite important. As the language of mixing steadily evolves, I would think having the surround matched with the front speakers will be more and more important.

As a professional, I wonder: what do you think about DSP?
If you employ a 20-20K room correction DSP like Dirac Live, wouldn't it nuke any small differences in speaker timbre/frequency response anyway?