Which speaker setup best describes your primary audio system?

[RickS]

I guess 6.2.2 for now (Mains/surrounds and subs active, top middles passive) although most of my music and tv listening is either 2.2 with LR or 2.0 with the top middles or 3.2.2 mchstereo .
Movies, gaming and occasional atmos etc. music with everything on obviously.

If you have a mains (l+r+c) and 2 surrounds, is that not 5.x? How do you get to 6.x?

 

[hex168]

Main system, 2.0: 25 year old DIY speakers 10" Peerless vented 60 liter cabinet (wide baffle), 2" LPG fabric dome mid, Panasonic EAS-400TH "leaf" tweeter. Crossovers (as I can best recall) 670 Hz 2nd order electrical plus impedance compensation on woofer, mid 4th order electrical high pass and no low pass, tweeter 8 KHz but cannot remember the slope. Measured well 25 years ago using an RTA and calibrated mic.

 

[bloodshoteyed]

2.0 atm but it doesn't go deep enough si had to go with the 2.x option

 

[ZööZ]

If you have a mains (l+r+c) and 2 surrounds, is that not 5.x? How do you get to 6.x?

1 back surround (back center)

 

[maverickronin]

Is it passive 2.2 if you use an active crossover?

Well that all depends on how you define it. Does using a DSP box to crossover the subs make the entire setup active? I suppose if you take the broadest possible definition.

Anyway, I got the impression that active vs. passive for purposes of this poll was based on the main speakers so I voted passive.

 

[Vovgan]

Interesting poll. I hope more members vote so we get a good sense of where everyone's interest is.

Promote it to home page and they will

very disappointing to see that so far only 1 in 4 uses more than 2.x…

 

[Karu]

Active Mono in kitchen
Active Stereo 2.0 in bedroom
Active Stereo 2.1 in office
Active Stereo 2.2 in main room

 

[-Matt-]

For Atmos are we supposed to total all non-sub channels, or only state the channels in the base layer?

I.e. Should 7.1.4 be counted as 7.x or 11.x ?

How about configs using ceiling bounce speakers? Should we count discrete speaker boxes, or channels?

 

[ernestcarl]

Mine’s a frankestein system — main dedicated listening room setup — that can be changed by loading different DSP presets as well as changing speaker orientations (rotatable lazy suzan platform) and height adjustment (sit-stand desk). There are five main listening positions: the aforementioned sit or stand position for my front desk setup as well as three main seating positions at the couch in the rear part of the room.

Configurations saved as DSP presets can be loaded for a 1.0/2.0/2.1/3.1/4.0/4.1/5.1/7.1 channel system

There’s also “compensation” presets to mainly adjust for time and volume level differences when one is sitting at the corner seats of the couch.

Only thing missing is support for Atmos and ceiling height channels, but that will require me to at least get a new DAC with 10 or more output channels. Perhaps I’ll eventually get the upgrade bug — but…already good with what I have now.

 

[-Matt-]

Currently only running 7.2... Main focus in designing my rig was multi-channel music, of which some of my 5.1 recordings (DTS 5.1) are for a Rear Center instead of Front Center... this gets parsed to the Rear Surrounds.
Am set up to expand very soon to 7.3.4... hence I vote 11.x.

While I get the sentiment, going to treat Atmos outside of the scope here. So would go 7.x.

^This exchange implies that a 7.3.4 Atmos system should be logged as 7.x multichannel. Hence we should inlude only base layer non-sub channels in the multichannel number.

Is that really the intention?

If so, there is a good chance that most of the votes so far cast for 7.x, 9.x and 11.x should really be decreased to 5.x or 7.x.

Personally I see no reason why Atmos channels would be out of scope if your main audio system is an AV one. I think all non-sub channels should be counted, unless the intention is to unfairly skew the data to lower channel counts?

@Rick Sykora Clarification on this would be helpful.

Edit: Many members have posted details about 2 or more systems. Why not allow multiple votes to be cast? If we have to choose which is our primary system, what criteria should be used? Is it the system you spend most time listening to, the one you have invested most in, your favourite or best performing one? It is not currently a well posed question.

A simpler phrasing might be...
For each system that you own - what is the total number of discrete channels used? (Cast one vote per system).

Additional guidance:
Disregard additional subwoofers (only one is required to add the .x suffix). Count each multi-way speaker, whether the crossover is active or passive, as a single discrete channel. Matrixed speakers, such as dual centers for example, are not discrete and so should count as a single channel.

 

[FrantzM]

Music Listening 2-Channel + Dual Subwoofers in quasi-Geddes Configuration. (mono subwoofers, quasi random position) All the speakers are active.
2 x JBL LSR-308
2 x Dayton Audio SUB-1500 ...

HT. I suppose this to be a 7.x but ... for some it would be a 5.2.2
3 x JBL LSR-308 (LCR)
2 x JBL LSR-305 (Surrounds)
2 x JBL stage? (Atmos)
2 x Dayton Audio SUB-1500

 

[Adi777]

Active stereo 2.0 computer farts - Edifier S3000 Pro.
Headphones - Hifiman Deva Pro, Shanling M1.

 

[bluefuzz]

Active means the Amp is built into your main speakers.

No. I understand it to mean an 'active' crossover (either digital or analogue) where the amps come after the crossover in the signal chain. Whether the amps and/or crossover are built into the speaker box is irrelevant.

My LX-minis with a single sub are voted 'Active 2.X'.

 

[bluefuzz]

very disappointing to see that so far only 1 in 4 uses more than 2.x

Why disappointing? It's not a competition.

Outside the US very few people have either the room or the money (even if they had the inclination) for more than 2.x. I'm surprised the numbers are so high in this poll. I've personally never seen a multichannel setup > 2.x 'in the wild' so to speak. However, there should certainly be an 'Active 1.0' option for all those 'smart' speakers that probably outsell both stereo and multichannel by an order of magnitude nowadays ...

 

[dualazmak]

I tentatively voted for "Active stereo 2.0", but wondering if my latest setup would be in this category or not.

The system is; in PC upstream software music player and DSP (XO/EQ), multichannel DAC (DAC8PRO), multiple amplifiers drive directly SP drivers in stereo L&R 2 channels, ehach of L & R consists of 5 SP drivers, namely active sub-woofer, woofer, midrange squawker, tweeter and super-tweeter.

Is "Active stereo 2.0" right choice/vote in my case?

 

[RickS]

^This exchange implies that a 7.3.4 Atmos system should be logged as 7.x multichannel. Hence we should inlude only base layer non-sub channels in the multichannel number.

Is that really the intention?

Yes, as explained earlier, do not find the Atmos numbering helpful and so decided it would be easier to handle in another poll If warranted. Given the current skew towards stereo, does not seem a major factor.

If so, there is a good chance that most of the votes so far cast for 7.x, 9.x and 11.x should really be decreased to 5.x or 7.x.

Personally I see no reason why Atmos channels would be out of scope if your main audio system is an AV one. I think all non-sub channels should be counted, unless the intention is to unfairly skew the data to lower channel counts?

@Rick Sykora Clarification on this would be helpful.

Edit: Many members have posted details about 2 or more systems. Why not allow multiple votes to be cast? If we have to choose which is our primary system, what criteria should be used? Is it the system you spend most time listening to, the one you have invested most in, your favourite or best performing one? It is not currently a well posed question.

A simpler phrasing might be...
For each system that you own - what is the total number of discrete channels used? (Cast one vote per system).

Additional guidance:
Disregard additional subwoofers (only one is required to add the .x suffix). Count each multi-way speaker, whether the crossover is active or passive, as a single discrete channel. Matrixed speakers, such as dual centers for example, are not discrete and so should count as a single channel.

As stated, the poll was meant to count primary use. As mentioned earlier, once we get a initial understanding, follow-on polls can help address. I empathize with your proposals but changing the poll significantly while the poll is still active will be more confusing. I have more than one system (too many if you ask my wife) and even more if we count smart speakers. Counting each member system could potentially skew the results in ways I cannot anticipate or compensate for in the data.

Am using the Something Else category as a gauge of whether I did may have been unaware of some common configuration. While most have posted multichannel systems using an even number of primary speakers, it still does not significantly change the skew away from stereo. My primary system is multichannel but used more in stereo. So, yes, this poll is not perfect, but it should be a useful steppingstone to further understanding.

 

[RickS]

I tentatively voted for "Active stereo 2.0", but wondering if my latest setup would be in this category or not.

The system is; in PC upstream software music player and DSP (XO/EQ), multichannel DAC (DAC8PRO), multiple amplifiers drive directly SP drivers in stereo L&R 2 channels, ehach of L & R consists of 5 SP drivers, namely active sub-woofer, woofer, midrange squawker, tweeter and super-tweeter.

Is "Active stereo 2.0" right choice/vote in my case?

Yes, for this initial round, think you made the right choice. Thanks for voting!

 

[polmuaddib]

I don't understand the use of active variant in the poll.
This poll could have been simplified because all options can be passive or active.
Because, IMHO, number of speakers people listen to, to immerse themselves into music, has nothing to do with system being active or passive.

 

[polmuaddib]

Of course, you can sum the first four, if that is what interests you/me, and see that more then 75% people here prefer stereo over multichannel...

 

[Waxx]

Why disappointing? It's not a competition.

Outside the US very few people have either the room or the money (even if they had the inclination) for more than 2.x. I'm surprised the numbers are so high in this poll. I've personally never seen a multichannel setup > 2.x 'in the wild' so to speak. However, there should certainly be an 'Active 1.0' option for all those 'smart' speakers that probably outsell both stereo and multichannel by an order of magnitude nowadays ...

True, in Europe, home theater setups in houses are rare, most have just a stereo setup, maybe with a subwoofer or two connected. But a 5.1 or higher system requires a much bigger than average home or a dedicated room that most don't have. And even people who can afford it rarely have systems like that. It's just not so much in fashion down here.

And the average "living room" in a Belgian house is about 30 to 60m², and is a salon (sitting room), dinner room and play room for the children at the same time. So no room for a big complicated setup, only for a small stereo setup or a smart speaker and the tv is often coupled direct to the stereo setup. Belgian housers are big compared to most houses in the countries arround us, so i guess there it's the same...