Why Haven;t You Tried Immersive 3D Audio Yet?

[semente]

All speakers bleed sound to both ears to a greater or lesser degree. Even a wall can barely prevent this.

 

It took me 20 years to duplicate in software what a barrier can do so easily mechanically. If the two speakers are identical then you know the wrong direct sound signal reaching the ear around the head has a fixed delay and a fixed loss of level. So you just generate a new signal for the other speaker with such a delay, level and polarity that it will acoustically cancel that sound from the other speaker just as it is arriving at the wrong ear. Then you must cancel this sound gong back around the head to the other ear all over again and so on. There is a longer and better explanation on the Ambio website and a whole free book on the subject.

 

Thanks, it's starting to make sense sow.

I presume that this requires dialling-in the distance between speakers and from speakers to ears, and any movement of the head will affect the cancelling effect.

And even though I have no technical expertise, I'm still not convinced that such "tampering" of the signal will not degrade it.

Hopefully I can be proven wrong sometime...

 

Cheers,

Ricardo

[semente]

Whoa, there cowboy, I never said that I *like* the IsoMike recordings, I said that they were the best use of surround i've heard. Like I said, while the ambience retrieval is exactly what I think one should hear from a Mch recording, the fact that Kimber uses a pair of omnidirectional mikes for the main channels means that the actual stereo image isn't very good. It's OK for solo instruments, but as the frequency falls, the stereo directionality becomes less and less.

 

This is interesting as I have always found that imaging and "soundstaging" (that results from side-wall reflections) were inversely proportional.

I think that the best illustration would be the ghosting one used get during the analog TV days when the antenna wasn't properly setup:

 

 

There's a bit of 3D-ness to it but the focus suffers...

 

R

[Ralph Glasgal]

Thanks, it's starting to make sense sow. I presume that this requires dialling-in the distance between speakers and from speakers to ears, and any movement of the head will affect the cancelling effect. And even though I have no technical expertise, I'm still not convinced that such "tampering" of the signal will not degrade it. Hopefully I can be proven wrong sometime. Ricardo

 

I know something as new and technical as this is not easily assimilated. In a normal sound field you can rotate your head, nod, lean etc. and the brain adjusts. It is the same with Ambiophonics. Anyone on the center line between the front speakers will hear the wide stage, depth and clarity that Ambio can deliver regardless of normal head movements, standing or sitting, etc.

 

You only have to set two non critical parameters. One a delay and the other an attenuation. You just play a left channel only signal and adjust the two controls until the image just reaches as far to the left side as you can get it. There is a whole tutorial on this as usual on the Ambio website You don't have to make any distance or angle measurements. Distance doesn't matter anyway. Only the general angle formed by where you and your friends are listening to the two speakers matters. 20 degrees or one third the normal stereo spacing is usually about right but this is not critical. That is why the two adjustments are provided so you can tweak if you like to audiophile oblivion. I get a fabulously wide stage from a six inch wide sound bar that I hold in my hands and even pass around.

 

You can move your head just as you can in a concert hall. It is a myth that loudspeaker binaural systems must have head tracking or employ HRTFs or anything resembling a filter.

 

It is indeed a myth that reproducing a normal 2.0 recording using speakers at 60 degrees is not tampering with the signal. XTC merely avoids that kind of serious and audible distortion. No ordinary stereo system will ever sound even close to being binaurally realistic. You will always be easily able to tell it is a recording. Same with Ambio of course, but it is a lot harder to explain why it does not quite sound real. But you can regard stereo as an art form like abstract black and white photography.

 

It is also amazing to me that Stereophile, TAS, most forums, etc. just blithely assume that the hundreds of Ambio and BACCH converts out there all have tin ears. They make this assumption without ever having tried a modern version of say Sonic Holography, Lexicon's Panorama Mode, Polk speakers etc. which are always cited as examples of why only stereo works. These early pioneers knew stereo was not normal but could not fix the problem. Similarly, the ambience and surround parts of Ambiophonics are viewed through a mythic lens due to the deficiencies of SQ 40 years ago, some pioneering DSP ambience devices, and drastic lack of psychoacoustic sense in the 5.1 and similar arrangements which are basically just 60 degree stereo with rear sound effects and a mono dialog center.

[STC]

..:: coming from the two front speakers. Also no two speaker types have the same axial radiation pattern and thus the same room reflection pattern.

 

But the sense of space in concert halls has been extensively investigated and some decades ago it was determined that humans prefer directional reflections to come from the sides, the rear, the ceiling and the front in this order of declining importance. Stereo of course being frontal is thus the worst place for reflections to come from. The ceiling is not great because that kind of reflection is mostly mono and the brain likes halls that deliver uncorrelated sound (binaural ITD and ILD) to the ears. Obviously, a reflection from the side produces the largest difference in sound between the ears.

 

I would say that in an Ambiophonic system, the two front speakers do faithfully reproduce all the direct and indirect frontal sound on the recording with all their horizontal directional cues intact. That is, even the reflections of instruments or the rear hall from the back of the front stage are treated as direct sound. So you really don't need to have any additional ambience speakers in the front 180 degrees of your room. So, yes, the rear sides are where the first resources should go. Then the rear and then the ceiling if you are really a fanatic.

 

So in a primitive reproduction system like two speaker 60 degree stereo, it is often an advantage to have the side wall remain reflective, and maybe just as often not.

 

An Ambiophonic system also benefits from a second XTC speaker pair behind the listeners to correct a pinna problem, provide envelopment (which is not like what you need to sense you are in a concert hall), and what you need to prevent the static side wall reflections from inadvertently spoiling what Ambiophonics can do. What works in a particular stereo system may not make sense in other reproduction systems

 

Thank you so much! For 8 years I was in dilemma whether to treat a particular slap echo at about 90 degrees /45 degrees height from my sitting position.

 

My ears tell me that the sound was more realistic when I leave the spot untreated but I treated it anyway because of articles such as this http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/slap-echo-2/.

 

I guess sometimes we have to trust our ears.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fitzcaraldo215]

 

...

It is also amazing to me that Stereophile, TAS, most forums, etc. just blithely assume that the hundreds of Ambio and BACCH converts out there all have tin ears. They make this assumption without ever having tried a modern version of say Sonic Holography, Lexicon's Panorama Mode, Polk speakers etc. which are always cited as examples of why only stereo works. These early pioneers knew stereo was not normal but could not fix the problem. Similarly, the ambience and surround parts of Ambiophonics are viewed through a mythic lens due to the deficiencies of SQ 40 years ago, some pioneering DSP ambience devices, and drastic lack of psychoacoustic sense in the 5.1 and similar arrangements which are basically just 60 degree stereo with rear sound effects and a mono dialog center.

Ralph - we know you are even way beyond very enthusiastic about your own Ambio scheme, blindly so, apparently. But, when you start throwing in distortions and misleading information in your bashing of alternatives, it makes you look bad, more like a politician or con man.

 

To wit, "drastic lack of psychoacoustic sense in the 5.1 and similar arrangements which are basically just 60 degree stereo with rear sound effects and a mono dialog center". That does not at all describe how discretely recorded hi rez Mch using the ITU standard works. Either you are ignorant of how it actually works, or you are trying to promote your own process through falsification and distortion about alternatives. Unfortunately, this calls into question the truth of anything you say. So, my own curiousity about Ambiophonics has now waned once again to the point of complete disinterest. I say "once again" because I was aware of it as well as BACCH, but not as burning issues.

 

Incidentally, I believe that Kal Rubinson of Stereophile, among others, have indeed heard and reported on BACCH. I recall seeing that. However, he was far, far less enthusiastic about it than you. He is also quite aware of Ambiophonics. He did not say people who liked these technologies had tin ears.

[witchdoctor]

Ralph - we know you are even way beyond very enthusiastic about your own Ambio scheme, blindly so, apparently. But, when you start throwing in distortions and misleading information in your bashing of alternatives, it makes you look bad, more like a politician or con man.

 

To wit, "drastic lack of psychoacoustic sense in the 5.1 and similar arrangements which are basically just 60 degree stereo with rear sound effects and a mono dialog center". That does not at all describe how discretely recorded hi rez Mch using the ITU standard works. Either you are ignorant of how it actually works, or you are trying to promote your own process through falsification and distortion about alternatives. Unfortunately, this calls into question the truth of anything you say. So, my own curiousity about Ambiophonics has now waned once again to the point of complete disinterest. I say "once again" because I was aware of it as well as BACCH, but not as burning issues.

 

Incidentally, I believe that Kal Rubinson of Stereophile, among others, have indeed heard and reported on BACCH. I recall seeing that. However, he was far, far less enthusiastic about it than you. He is also quite aware of Ambiophonics. He did not say people who liked these technologies had tin ears.

 

I think you are making outrageous attacks to call Ralph a liar. If you have accurate information to correct a post great, share it. To attack the poster who has provided a lot of excellent information is ridiculous. The entire basis of your claim about somethimh someone wrote you can't even remeber should go right back in the hole you climbed out of.

 

So, what has your EXPERIENCE been with 3D audio not MCH? I shared mine, Ralph and STC shared their's, what about yours? do you have pics?

[STC]

Ralph - we know you are even way beyond very enthusiastic about your own Ambio scheme, blindly so, apparently. But, when you start throwing in distortions and misleading information in your bashing of alternatives, it makes you look bad, more like a politician or con man.

 

To wit, "drastic lack of psychoacoustic sense in the 5.1 and similar arrangements which are basically just 60 degree stereo with rear sound effects and a mono dialog center". That does not at all describe how discretely recorded hi rez Mch using the ITU standard works. Either you are ignorant of how it actually works, or you are trying to promote your own process through falsification and distortion about alternatives. Unfortunately, this calls into question the truth of anything you say. So, my own curiousity about Ambiophonics has now waned once again to the point of complete disinterest. I say "once again" because I was aware of it as well as BACCH, but not as burning issues.

 

Incidentally, I believe that Kal Rubinson of Stereophile, among others, have indeed heard and reported on BACCH. I recall seeing that. However, he was far, far less enthusiastic about it than you. He is also quite aware of Ambiophonics. He did not say people who liked these technologies had tin ears.

 

I usually do not speak for others but would make an exception in this case for a 86 year man who has spent most of his life for science ( even having an island named after him in his honor) and more than 40 years research on psychoacoustic. He was also one of the early designer of RIAA equalization and probably some of the old reference LP used by TAS or Stereophile were made with his.

 

He has no commercial interest nor selling any of his product. His opinions ought to have more weight than part time or full time writers of magazines.

 

 

He actually said "They make this assumption without ever having tried a modern version of say Sonic Holography, Lexicon's Panorama Mode, Polk speakers etc. which are always cited as examples of why only stereo works. These early pioneers knew stereo was not normal but could not fix the problem. Similarly, the ambience and surround parts of Ambiophonics are viewed through a mythic lens due to the deficiencies of SQ 40 years ago, some pioneering DSP ambience devices, and drastic lack of psychoacoustic sense in the 5.1 and similar arrangements which are basically just 60 degree stereo with rear sound effects and a mono dialog center."

 

He is well aware of ITU 5.1/7.1 and even had a link on how to further incorporate Ambiophonics wit them. You can read here.

 

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12488

 

And on tin ears, in the earlier post, the senior editor of Stereophile did suggest that I am probably ignorant of the true meaning of 3D sound, although he subsequently qualified his statement but I have no other interpretation of his statement than to think I am inferior to his hearing standards.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[witchdoctor]

So, back to my original post, why haven't you tried 3D audio I see a variety of responses. Some were I tried it and here is what I think, some are I haven't tried it and then asked questions, and then were those who never tried it and were of the opinion it would not work, was a bad idea, or just not to their taste.

 

If you are in this hobby as a dedicated 2 channel enthusiast like in a desktop setup I get it. But if you are in a room where the speakers are on the other side why not have options?

[gmgraves]

So, back to my original post, why haven't you tried 3D audio I see a variety of responses. Some were I tried it and here is what I think, some are I haven't tried it and then asked questions, and then were those who never tried it and were of the opinion it would not work, was a bad idea, or just not to their taste.

 

If you are in this hobby as a dedicated 2 channel enthusiast like in a desktop setup I get it. But if you are in a room where the speakers are on the other side why not have options?

 

But what if you find the clutter and expense of adding all those extra channels not worth the result? Right now, I can only do 4-channel, but at my last place I had a 5.1 system with matched speakers by the Canadian company, Athena I had two front channel speakers, a center channel speaker and two rear speakers as well as a pair of subwoofers which fit under the front mains and connected to them via a unique rail connection system. On top of my then HD rear projection 55" TV was a 5.1 channel Marantz A/V receiver. This system was separate from my normal stereo system and my stereo used different speakers (M-L Vistas). The main reason for this ensemble, was of course movie sound, but I listened to some surround classical titles too. That's where most of my opinions about the worth of surround sound were formed. When I moved from the San Francisco Bay Area up here to Reno, I realize that I couldn't tote all this stuff with me (and I didn't want the TV) so I sold the speakers (except for the subs) gave the TV to St. Vincent dePaul and gave the Marantz to a friend. My point here is that I seldom listened to the surround even for movies (as I don't like most modern films anyway and am much more into classic films) and even more seldom did (do) I listen to surround music. I decided that the clutter and expense of adding another surround system just wasn't worth the effort for the often dismal and more often gratuitous result it offered. I wouldn't have 4-channels now if the M-L Aeon-i's hadn't literally fallen in my lap when a friend passed away.

[STC]

So, back to my original post, why haven't you tried 3D audio I see a variety of responses. Some were I tried it and here is what I think, some are I haven't tried it and then asked questions, and then were those who never tried it and were of the opinion it would not work, was a bad idea, or just not to their taste.

 

If you are in this hobby as a dedicated 2 channel enthusiast like in a desktop setup I get it. But if you are in a room where the speakers are on the other side why not have options?

 

I too was reluctant to try anything else besides stereo. Years of indoctrination that the true real sound can only be achieved by stereo shut my mind to other methods.

 

The biggest hurdle is the difference. Just like 3D movies, the obvious different tells our brain something is not right even when it is correct. Some do not like 3D movies even though they are more real than 2D.

 

The other problem is peer pressure. The moment you are using DSP you become an outcast in audiophile world.

 

And lastly, it is possible that some people may be incapable of hearing 3D sound just like about 5% of the population do not have the stereophonic vision for 3D movies.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[audiventory]

The moment you are using DSP you become an outcast in audiophile world.

 

I suppose, DSP in sound holography is inevitable.

[STC]

I suppose, DSP in sound holography is inevitable.

 

You can always do this (picture below). I was reluctant to try the DSP at first and used this method. I even went to the extreme by placing the speakers in adjoining rooms and sit in the middle at the entrance.

 

I moved to DSP after many blind tests with MiniDSP. Now using the $10 plugin with JRIVER.

 

 

This picture was taken from the internet. It is not my setup.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[STC]

But what if you find the clutter and expense of adding all those extra channels not worth the result? Right now, I can only do 4-channel, but at my last place I ......

 

Four channels are more than enough. I was with this setup for years and only recently had the courage to add the additional eight speakers on trial basis.

 

Now I am unsure whether to replace the surround speakers with better ones or simply add more similar convolution speakers. I might opt for more speakers and save some money.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ralph Glasgal]

Well I am sorry that you take my comments on 5.1 that way. It is of course quite difficult for a solitary researcher to fight the 5.1/ Atmos/Auro industrial lobby.

 

5.1 was primarily designed for movie theaters where people sit all over the place. Since in offside stereo, the center dialog was hard to keep centered they put the dialog in a center speaker. The speakers at the rear were mostly intended for mono sound effects. Now when this format was moved into the world of home music reproduction it needed a lot of shoe horning. The rears were now supposed to yield great ambience and so THX rear speakers were supposed to bounce off the walls. Of course, then they were not so good for movie sound effects. Nobody has ever produced a normal rear stage or credible hall ambience this way. However, that is not to say that 5.1 is not better than normal stereo. It is, despite what many at Stereophile and TAS and all the other anti surround forums out there maintain. Also Dolby Atmos, Auro 3D, and DTS are better than plain 5.1 or plain stereo but unfortunately still rely on the stereophonic sonic illusion to produce a stingy 60 degree wide front stage with inherently bad frequency response due to possible combing now between three speakers. (That is why the center speaker is often just mono with the outer speakers normal stereo.)

 

I hate to belabor the point but if you think you can image between a center speaker and one at the side, play a stereo CD and play it through two speakers separated by 30 degrees. Now face one of the speakers and see what kind of a half stage you get.

 

However that is not the point. It is easy to improve on basic stereo since it has so many weaknesses. There is a long history of such improvements. I believe that with today's technologies, for home use, Ambiophonics, BACCH, and the other similar wave field or binaural loudspeaker technologies are the coming leaders.

 

Someone from this forum just has to come here for a demo and then report to the group if you don't believe the Ambio users out there. You should read this review from a German Webzine on The Amtra product.

 

http://www.lowbeats.de/test-software-app-xivero-amtra-und-amtra-play/

 

[audiventory]

Test: Software XiVero AMTRA + App AMTRA PLAY – LowBeats

 

Figure 3.2 it is isolating speakers scheme (like headphones)?

[Ralph Glasgal]

Figure 3.2 it is isolating speakers scheme (like headphones)?

It is the latest crosstalk cancelling program using the RACE algorithm. This means it is loudspeaker binaural rather than earphone binaural. Using earphones is a problem because they all interfere with the pinna so loudspeakers do work much better and they work even better with non dummy head recordings. I wish you could use it with headphones but this is not the case. m It does work well with these little speaker bars like Soundmatters and Jambox that you can hang around your neck.

[witchdoctor]

But what if you find the clutter and expense of adding all those extra channels not worth the result? Right now, I can only do 4-channel, but at my last place I had a 5.1 system with matched speakers by the Canadian company, Athena I had two front channel speakers, a center channel speaker and two rear speakers as well as a pair of subwoofers which fit under the front mains and connected to them via a unique rail connection system. On top of my then HD rear projection 55" TV was a 5.1 channel Marantz A/V receiver. This system was separate from my normal stereo system and my stereo used different speakers (M-L Vistas). The main reason for this ensemble, was of course movie sound, but I listened to some surround classical titles too. That's where most of my opinions about the worth of surround sound were formed. When I moved from the San Francisco Bay Area up here to Reno, I realize that I couldn't tote all this stuff with me (and I didn't want the TV) so I sold the speakers (except for the subs) gave the TV to St. Vincent dePaul and gave the Marantz to a friend. My point here is that I seldom listened to the surround even for movies (as I don't like most modern films anyway and am much more into classic films) and even more seldom did (do) I listen to surround music. I decided that the clutter and expense of adding another surround system just wasn't worth the effort for the often dismal and more often gratuitous result it offered. I wouldn't have 4-channels now if the M-L Aeon-i's hadn't literally fallen in my lap when a friend passed away.

 

That's a good answer:) Space and expense are always a concern.

[witchdoctor]

I too was reluctant to try anything else besides stereo. Years of indoctrination that the true real sound can only be achieved by stereo shut my mind to other methods.

The biggest hurdle is the difference. Just like 3D movies, the obvious different tells our brain something is not right even when it is correct. Some do not like 3D movies even though they are more real than 2D.

The other problem is peer pressure. The moment you are using DSP you become an outcast in audiophile world.

And lastly, it is possible that some people may be incapable of hearing 3D sound just like about 5% of the population do not have the stereophonic vision for 3D movies.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was just watching a 3D movie today! Trust me, any one listening in 3D sound on my rig will have no trouble hearing it. If I wanted to crank it up it can make the paint peel right off the walls or be sitting in the tenth row at a concert. I had to make that leap going from 2 speakers to 2.1 then 5.1 and each time I liked the improvement so 10.1 wasn;t that great a leap.

[STC]

I was just watching a 3D movie today! Trust me, any one listening in 3D sound on my rig will have no trouble hearing it. If I wanted to crank it up it can make the paint peel right off the walls or be sitting in the tenth row at a concert. I had to make that leap going from 2 speakers to 2.1 then 5.1 and each time I liked the improvement so 10.1 wasn;t that great a leap.

 

Hearing the 3D effect and liking it are two different things. In the case of 3D TV failure, it has been discovered rather late that some people do not have stereoscopic vision. The symptom is well documented.

 

However, whether similar deficiency exist in human hearing is not known. At least, I am not aware of any research addressing to the lack of stereophonics hearing. IMO, this is crucial to understand our hearing as we are mostly relying on the two speakers to create the phantom center image.

 

Furthermore, due to habit we may not like or able to decode the artificial 3D sound created by two speakers properly. In an experiment conducted by Washington Uni found that " It seems that people can become so accustomed to attending to the input from just one ear, that they have difficulty ignoring any input from that ear. Selective attention is not always a conscious process.". Although, this statement is not in reference to 3D hearing but it could well be applied to audiophiles who for decades trained to accept and decode the erroneous stereo sound, may now suddenly need to readjust their brain to hear without crosstalk. To expect them to appreciate 3D sound may need sometime for the brain to readjust itself.

[Rt66indierock]

I see a lot written on this board about audio and a lot of what is written about seems like a traveler confused by a mirage. Recorded audio is a glimpse of a live performance with its own limitations. Last I looked you can't fit a piano in a microphone and extract it at the other end.

Can somebody please explain why two speakers is the right number? No you can't because it isn't the right number. If it was a PA system at a concert would only use two speakers right? Maybe if it was in closet but last I checked they place speakers around the auditorium.

Take a moment and ground yourself and see if you can answer that question, why two speakers? If you don't know start with this book, chapter 15-

https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485726927&sr=8-1&keywords=floyd+toole

in section 15.8 the author discusses upmixing algorithms. My favorite is Auro 3D. To me trying to achieve the best SQ with two speakers is like trying to cross the ocean in a row boat, more effort than its worth, YMMV. Please check this out:

 

Auro-3D Music Upmix Demo with StormAudio ISP 3D.16 Elite Pre/Pro at CES 2017 - AVSForum.com

 

Witch,

 

Two speakers goes back to Bell Labs research. In general 3 is the optimal number according to them but two was more practical.

 

As to why I haven't tried it, in my case I hear sounds from where they are coming from. And prefer a "wall of sound" a lot of the time. If drum sound is coming from a speaker I hear the speaker even in a small environments like a living room. Probably from too many years consulting in the broadcast industry to change.

[witchdoctor]

Witch,

 

Two speakers goes back to Bell Labs research. In general 3 is the optimal number according to them but two was more practical.

 

As to why I haven't tried it, in my case I hear sounds from where they are coming from. And prefer a "wall of sound" a lot of the time. If drum sound is coming from a speaker I hear the speaker even in a small environments like a living room. Probably from too many years consulting in the broadcast industry to change.

 

As long as you are happy is good. I see so many people spending $$$$ chasing SQ through 2 channel setups where a 3D setup may actually be better investment to consider.

[audiventory]

Two speakers goes back to Bell Labs research. In general 3 is the optimal number according to them but two was more practical.

 

Each research results is fairly in certain conditions only.

 

If I hear "Scientists have proved", I ask: "What is conditions?"

[Rt66indierock]

Each research results is fairly in certain conditions only.

 

If I hear "Scientists have proved", I ask: "What is conditions?"

 

Greetings from the Valley of the Sun.

 

The Bell Labs research goes back to the 1930's when they were making stereo work in the United States. There is as much information as you desire readily available. The short version is in Paul Klipsch's biography.

[audiventory]

Greetings from the Valley of the Sun.

 

The Bell Labs research goes back to the 1930's when they were making stereo work in the United States. There is as much information as you desire readily available. The short version is in Paul Klipsch's biography.

 

That time was not computer processing. For modern technologies may be other conclusions.

 

Also need model a different speaker systems by optimal result (as example, allowable error of frequency and phase response of sound field in single or several points). It can be computer method only for resonable terms of calculations.

[Sam Lord]

I think it's helpful to describe stereo differently. Using the the old Stereophile test disc that uses a surround demo with two channels from a Blumlein pair, a good playback system yields about a 270 degree soundstage with correct distance, namely a slamming door at around 40 feet distant. Our best systems provided a 300 degree field: only a 60 deg cone behind us became diffuse. There was no conflict between soundstaging and imaging there, though I've experienced that elsewhere. And the realism of this setup far, far exceeded any surround demo I' ve heard.

 

In my system, 5+ ch surround isn't possible, I have only one rear side wall. I have an 8ft ceiling holding a 110" rolldown screen. I can't put a center channel beneath it for accessibility reasons.

 

Anyway, as I stated before, three speakers in front are sufficient for height reproduction if there is a vertical offset, and Chesky preferred 4ch in front. When I hear a 3d demo that impresses me I'll talk about it. I have no firsthand basis to judge it now.

Cheers

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app