Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

The "theory" is that direct sound is dominant. If you change the listener position w.r.t. the speakers, than you also need to change the delay timings for the speaker which the processor does as well as the levels (and FR to some degree). So whether you mix with one speaker layout or another, unless you room is poor, if you are following the Dolby setup requirements, the sound should be very similar as frequency response, level and time of arrival will be the same in both instances. The variable is the room / speaker interaction, and in a mixing room that must be controlled.

@thespeakerdude I realize this but does it make sense to mix at one position and listen at another? Just thought that was an interesting thought, makes me think that so many things we do in sound has a coating of silly mythology in it.

@thespeakerdude Am I correct to assume that Dolby is counting on the listener to use time alignment algorithms in the everyday playback system? The difference in original mixing position and final listening position is probably about 5 feet difference in a typical room. You saying the sound is dominant corresponding to the L,C,R direct sound is interesting because in 5.1 the L,R, surround speakers play a bigger part and in music sometimes a critical part if the mixer is willing to take chances. Based on the best mixed Atmos music I've heard it really sound like a big stereo mix and the brave mixers were wearing the same hat as the early stereo mixers (Beatles) who panned hard L,R info commonly. Active speakers have different time arrival info than passive systems if Dolby does not assume DSP in every system the emperor has no clothes, if you know what I mean. Object oriented sound panning info. works no matter what the acoustic environment.

This is a great example of the silliness that audiophiles live under. They worry about time alignment to within ½ inch but active passive circuits have at least 4 milliseconds of latency in the original recordings if there are digital and passive circuits involved, there is no way to see or hear that much time differences because it is invisible to the post production mixer on movies or live recordings. 

This is a great example of the silliness that audiophiles live under.

This entire thread has been hijacked by confusion and has now morphed into silliness.
You are comparing consumers (audiophiles) with creators (artists, mixers, and mastering engineers).

Did you notice how much more you liked listening to your Paradigm speakers then your Genelecs? Did you worry about time alignment or did you enjoy the moment? Just like you changed speakers you have to leave your analytic ears at the mixing station and your relaxation ears to your other rig. I think having them both in the same room is why you are getting mixed up.

@donavabdear You are correct, but let’s not call it time alignment, as that usually refers to a speaker correction algorithm. More accurate would be delay correction. Then throw in volume correction (and maybe frequency response correction). ATMOS to work properly must be calibrated to the listening (or mixing) position.

@donavabdear 

"correction" this may be the reason you are getting mixed up:

 but let’s not call it time alignment, as that usually refers to a speaker correction algorithm. More accurate would be delay correction. Then throw in volume correction 

Correction this has now gone past confusion and morphed into silliness