Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

If anyone wants to try upmixing their 2 channel music here are some things to try:

1) For straight upmixing most people agree Auro-3D works great for music.

2) For upmixing 2 channel or 5.1 channel mixes into Atmos or DTS-X an X-Box series S or X has an app you can get that will render ANY content (music or movies) into an Atmos or DTS-X bitstream for your processor. This works better than the upmixers in your processor 99% of the time.

3) If using the Dolby Surround upmixer in your receiver go into settings and turn center spread to ON.

4) If you already have a 5.1 channel system and want to add speakers add wide or height channels before adding surround back.

My personal preference is to add wide channels first but not all receivers offer wide connections.

I have threads here on setting up your system for Atmos and another on Atmos music for more info.

@donavabdear , Movies are an entirely different proposition and usually a very different audience. Things move around in movies and people love hearing that motion in sound. Imagine Thelonious Monk loading his piano onto an F1 car and driving it around the room. 

There is one application for multiple speakers I may delve into. The door to my workshop faces the back of my media room. I had both the system in the shop going along with the main system and was playing some live record, don't remember which one and darn if it didn't create the third dimension. At the listening position the shop system would have been at least 15 dB down from the main one. The audience noise came from all around like a real show and I felt (sounded) as if I were in a much larger room. The shop speakers are about 30 feet from the listening position, the main speakers 12 feet, an 18 foot difference with a delay of about 1.8 msec. If I mounted something like Kef 50's in the back of the room, ran them 15-20 dB down and delayed them 1.8 msec I should get the same effect. I could increase the delay to simulate a larger venue or turn them off entirely for small ones. Will this detract or add to the 2 channel experience? From what I've heard I think It will definitely add to live albums, maybe not studio ones. The only way I'll ever know for sure is to cough up the money and try it. I'll have an extra 2 channels to play with from the DEQX so all I need is a small amp and the speakers. Ambience speakers only made possible with digital processing. 

You can put a line array in a phone booth if you are so inclined. The benefit in a system like mine comes from several traits that tall ESLs have. To have a full range line source in any room the array has to extend from floor to ceiling or it will revert to point source behavior at low frequencies, frequencies with wavelengths longer than the speakers are tall. 100 Hz is ten feet. The problem is that the sound from point source systems decays at the cube of the distance but line sources decay at the square. Line sources project more powerfully. When you walk towards a line source it does not seem to get much louder. Another interesting trait of line sources is they do not radiate above or below the line. Very little energy is sent towards the ceiling and floor. ESLs are dipoles, they radiate very little energy to the sides. Because of all this Line source dipoles cause much less room interaction and the only room treatment I use is behind the speakers. On either side of the screen is floor to ceiling acoustic tile. All of it cost me $89.00. 

Line arrays sound more powerful. It is like adding a turbocharger to your car. They cast a larger more lifelike image. It is like moving from the back of the hall to the front. Between 100 Hz and 18 kHz ESL have at least one magnitude less distortion. Big ESLs will make bass but it really screws up everything else. 100 Hz and down is way better off coming from a sub. The end result is a large powerful image with lightening fast transient response and a level of detail not possible with most other drivers. They never seem stressed. There is never any sibilance. Violins and female voices are totally painless. Because both channels are equalized to have the exact same frequency response curve imaging is excellent. 

I could go on and on. ESLs are not a panacea. Over 40 years I migrated from Acoustat X's, an extremely flawed loudspeaker, through 4 other pairs of ESLs to the system I have now. From the old X's I heard something at low volumes I never heard out of any other system which attracted me to the type. I knew they could be better, much better. It was a matter of getting that sound up to realistic levels. Smaller ESLs, by smaller I mean less than ceiling height can be wonderful as long as they are not played to loudly, the bass is sent to subwoofers and you realize they are only going to sound right at one distance. They have the problem of changing from point source to line source mid stream which creates variations in frequency response with distance. I find this annoying as they loose that dynamic punch as you move away from them. It is a problem all Magneplaner speakers have. They were going to make the 20.7 8 feet tall but the marketing arm shot that down. ESLs are also difficult to match with amplifiers. Most amps will drive them and most amps will not drive the very well. In my experience it take big amps with huge power supplies that can deal with 1 ohm loads and very high current demands at 16 kHz. They have to have enough power to still be able to put out at 20 ohms in the midbass and they have to be able to handle the reactive nature of the load. These requirements make ESLs a more expensive proposition not to mention subwoofer, more amps and a crossover. 

This is a nice video and from 19:00 to 25:00 they talk about mixing in Atmos. Studio C was converted and now they are using it  mostly for Atmos music:

Paula is now working for UMG where they have built a new studio in Santa Monica (mostly for Def Jam records and Dr Dre) and every room is equipped for ATMOS. Many of these early ATMOS rooms are still feeling their way. Some of them don’t sound that great. Sometimes it’s severely compromised speakers used for these extra channels, as tho they can be something different from the mains and "blend". I for one don’t think that’s right, they must all be the same and be extremely consistent off axis or you have nothing but major dips in response via lobing.

Some of the record companies look upon atmos a clever way to squeeze more revenue from an old record they already own from long ago. They are hiring kids to remix the 2 channel into atmos, paying them almost nothing. They are doing it all via plug ins and their computer, and the music creators are NOT HAPPY about it at all. Some think they don’t sound very good or capture the original recording energy- from any perspective.  Some love it.  Some of theses early ATMOS mixes are not mastered- just squirted out and sold on Apple Music as Spatial. There are arguments going on about HOW to master ATMOS and I am witnessing some that as artists or mixers ask what is working.  We helped top Petty's guys jump to ATMOS and it sounds great in the studio but the Apple processing changes some of that.  Brian Lucey has posted here before and he is one that is doing work in ATMOS mastering with some success (and he is not using ATC or PMC).  One of my favorite mastering engineers Emily Lazar is doing great work too, but other very good mastering houses are staying on the sidelines for now. 

Some of the old timers aren’t sure how they feel about ATMOS as some still think it a special effect that works mostly in a binaural type ear bud format for Apple. Some think it’s the passing fad of 5.1. I personally see its best value as a 3 dimensional playback medium but Im certainly not in the majority. I want more mixes that represent actual 3 dimensional events or space, such as a concert hall or a room. Think of hearing it like it really is in Disney Hall, or how it was in a living room with Cowboy Junkies- maybe listen to Alanis Morrisette's "Jagged LIttle Pill" in the real living room they did it in.  This could really open up options for many forms of music, like Americana, Bluegrass, classical, jazz (think Patricia Barber in a club) and so much more.  That part is exciting.

@kota1 , what I see in those pictures is a whole bunch of cheap loudspeakers scattered about a room that was not originally designed for audio. Not my kind of system. 

@thespeakerdude is correct that DSP can do nothing about dispersion which is why room management is just as important, maybe even more so if you have a processor. My own approach is to use speakers in arrays that limit dispersion to minimize room interaction. All the systems I have heard that floated my boat all used speakers with limited dispersion. You can overdo it in that regard. Flat panel ESLs are a great example. In cases where one is using digital "room control" which is really "speaker control" In rooms with unfettered acoustics some troughs can be 10-15 dB down. If a processor tries to correct that it can clip amps and blow speakers. Most processors now will limit the amount of correction they will apply to prevent this from happening, but then you wind up with lumpy response curves. I find it useful to measure the system response with a separate measurement system from the processor. You may be surprised at the results.