# Front Height vs Front Wides?



## gregsdouglas (Feb 20, 2013)

We are re-doing the theater after a flood. Luckily the equipment was ok, but the carpet & drywall are toast so that's getting redone this and next week. Opportunity to change since my last arrangement wasn't optimal. 

I want to move the two subs from the front-right corner and put them both in front each at 1/3 the way in from the side walls. That means moving my gear to a rack beside the screen, and that means my Left & Right speakers need to move up above the rack, at around 40" height. Not perfect, but he room is smallish, some compromises are inevitable. (It's either that or mount LCR speakers across the bottom of the screen, like a sound bar I guess, but I don't think that's enough separation between the front three speakers. Could be wrong though.)

With the Left and Right speakers slightly elevated, I don't think that will give enough separation between the L&Rs and the Front Height speakers as they're currently set up. 

So.... I measured the length of the room from the front speaker grill to the Surround Back speaker grill. That's 226". If I put Front Wides and Surround Left/Rights at 75" intervals, that would leave the speakers equally-spaced, with the Wides ahead of the seating area and the Surround Left/Right slightly behind us (sofa is set with our heads 12 feet back from the screen. (We are at 100" 16:9, but I want to change to 120" 16:9 as part of this.)

So basically, before I run wires and mount speakers in new drywall, hoping to hear thoughts and feedback - would Front Wides give a better experience than the Heights??? Does this make sense? Image attached with dimensions. Room is 12.75 feet wide. 

Thoughts? Recommendations? I'm frustrated but need to get this sorted ASAP.

Sent from my iPhone using HTShack


----------



## Bruce Fisher (Nov 24, 2007)

Do you really need front wides? I've never been blown away by front wide or height channels. Usually they are on the front wall however - not the side wall as I think you are considering. I've never seen this proposed layout before - I'm not sure you will like the result.

I would (if I were in your shoes) look at an Atmos arrangement where your elevation speakers are in the ceiling.


----------



## Blacklightning (Nov 22, 2011)

Take this with a grain of salt but I always figured heights and wides to be a gimmick to sell more speakers and to have people upgrade from a 7.1 receiver. As far as I know, no content is native to the extra speakers.

I have had my 2 channel system setup so I get sound all round me to the point that I had to get up and see if my rear channels are on. A well setup 5.1 system with a good 5.1 master will place sound anywhere on the horizontal plane. 7.1 is a bonus but we are seeing less and less 7.1.

I *can* see a need for heights now that we have new formats and I would do this for a little bit of future proofing.

At the end of the day it's all about maximizing your setup. Speaker position and room treatment will get you closer to enjoyment than adding more speakers. I'm a purist so I will watch a 5.1 movie in 5.1 and not up-convert it to 7.1 as I feel that it's not the way it should be. It does sound "cool" at first but in the long run I end up liking the pure track better.

Long story short do heights as they will be useful in the future.


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

I think I would go for atmos too. I agree with blacklighting. A well setup 5/7.1 rig will deliver a better experience than an arrangement with more speakers for the sake of it. Imo the room too small to accommodate the extra speakers without having an audio mess. Atmos is the future with object based surround. Blacklighting is also right that there is no discrete content for height/wide. I would go future proof, or in a couple years you may be very upset. Also, I think the rear surrounds should come out of the corner and more toward the center rear of the room. This will give better separation in the back sound field.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Greg, if you're ripping the walls down, I would run wire for both options. At least that way you can play around, and wire is (relatively) cheap. I would also definitely run wire for Atmos, whether your receiver is equipped with it or not, because it looks like it is here to stay, and will likely be included whenever you do make your next upgrade.

Oh, are these all in-wall speakers? It sounds like it. So you'll have a bit less flexibility to test & move, but I think you can manage while you have the opportunity.

I think I have seen wides placed at the front side walls before, particularly if they are in-wall, because I remember thinking that might work for my planned room. Tweeters on a pivot would be extremely beneficial here.

Also, I'm with willis on the surrounds, if you're redoing drywall anyway, bring them in a little bit. I think the spec for "Surround Back" speakers is actually much closer to the centre of the wall. Here's a quick diagram from the THX website:


----------



## Blacklightning (Nov 22, 2011)

The front wide speaker position looks like a perfect place for a few acoustical panels. This will help with creating a wider sound field for your front imagine. This will help a lot more than a speaker in that position and keep the energy lower in that size of room.

I see that you already have 6 CG4 speakers and I'm sure you will want to use the extra 2 because you can but I think if you do want to use them, it would be better to use them as another set of side surrounds if you have multiple positions in the room. But I really would not use then until you can ceiling mount them for use with a 3D sound field format...

I have now looked at your old posts and I see you have great speakers with a setup that needed a lot of compromises because of WAF, wire layout and room layout. You should take a step back and post pictures of your room. You seem to be trying to get as much out of your system as you can.


----------



## Blacklightning (Nov 22, 2011)

I think most people follow the Dolby spec


----------



## willis7469 (Jan 31, 2014)

That's closer to what I normally see. Still, I think the corner is wrong.


----------



## Blacklightning (Nov 22, 2011)

willis7469 said:


> That's closer to what I normally see. Still, I think the corner is wrong.


Agree, I would rather see them together in the back then in the corner.

gregsdouglas, please post pictures of your room.


----------



## Peter Loeser (Aug 11, 2012)

As others have said it would be beneficial for us to see some photos of the room and have some more info regarding how much freedom you have to place new speakers, cut holes, add wiring, etc. Also, what height is your ceiling? Height channels may still be beneficial for you if your ceiling is high enough and you can do ceiling mount speakers. If your mains (tweeters) are 40" high, that's not unusual. If you're saying the top of your rack is 40" high, then yes, I would guess your mains will be a bit higher than normal.



Bruce Fisher said:


> Usually they are on the front wall however - not the side wall as I think you are considering.


Not true. Front wide placement is determined by angle from center, so depending on seating location and the width of the room they could end up on either the front or side walls. Based on those factors, mine are mounted on the side walls, very similar to Greg's sketch. (reference: Audyssey DSX and DTS Neo:X)




Bruce Fisher said:


> I would (if I were in your shoes) look at an Atmos arrangement where your elevation speakers are in the ceiling.


I agree that Atmos is a better implementation of height channels.




Blacklightning said:


> Take this with a grain of salt but I always figured heights and wides to be a gimmick to sell more speakers and to have people upgrade from a 7.1 receiver. As far as I know, no content is native to the extra speakers.


Gimmick - maybe, but that could be said of almost anything beyond a TV. And you are correct, the height and wide channels do not receive discrete signals. The AVR creates the content by matrixing information from the original 5.1 or 7.1 soundtrack.




Blacklightning said:


> I have had my 2 channel system setup so I get sound all round me to the point that I had to get up and see if my rear channels are on. A well setup 5.1 system with a good 5.1 master will place sound anywhere on the horizontal plane. 7.1 is a bonus but we are seeing less and less 7.1.


Agreed - a good 2-channel setup can produce a shockingly big soundstage, and a good 5.1 config can get you the vast majority of performance that 7.1 and up can achieve.




Blacklightning said:


> The front wide speaker position looks like a perfect place for a few acoustical panels. This will help with creating a wider sound field for your front imagine. This will help a lot more than a speaker in that position and keep the energy lower in that size of room.


True about proper treatment but placement depends on actual seating location and distance of mains from the side walls (as well as distance of cc from front wall). I have wides installed on my side walls and still had room to properly treat first reflections.




Blacklightning said:


> I see that you already have 6 CG4 speakers and I'm sure you will want to use the extra 2 because you can but I think if you do want to use them, it would be better to use them as another set of side surrounds if you have multiple positions in the room. But I really would not use then until you can ceiling mount them for use with a 3D sound field format...


Ceiling mount would definitely be the better option IMO. Two sets of surrounds could get ugly unless you have an AVR specifically designed to process more than one set.




Owen Bartley said:


> Also, I'm with willis on the surrounds, if you're redoing drywall anyway, bring them in a little bit. I think the spec for "Surround Back" speakers is actually much closer to the centre of the wall. Here's a quick diagram from the THX website:





Blacklightning said:


> I think most people follow the Dolby spec


Yes - THX setup vs Dolby setup. I'd go with the Dolby setup for home theater.


----------



## gregsdouglas (Feb 20, 2013)

Wow -thanks for all the feedback! I would love to move the back channels out from the corner, but unfortunately, the wall layout is such that it is not flat -the back left corner has a stub wall poking out from the back for a dartboard's scoreboard, and there is an opening where the stairs are for the entrance to the theater on the back-right, so unfortunately, short of suspending the speakers from the t-bar ceiling, the only place for the rears is in the corners. (and with 7 foot ceiling height, speakers hanging from the ceiling would be a hazard, unless they are flush-mounted like the RSL C34 units I was considering, I guess.)

I can definitely wire for both the heights and wides, so I'm Atmos-ready (or ready for whatever DTS puts out that likely will become the standard, if history is any teacher...)

I have a terrible time photographing the room. I've tried and tried, but cannot get any perspective when I try to share an idea based on what my camera "sees" of the theater.


----------



## mr_tv (Mar 18, 2014)

I am of a different mind when it comes to front wides. I REALLY LIKE THEM. I like your implementation. Mine are more towards the front wall but I think they need to be moved more like you plan on having them to get the angle right for my room. My front hight channels have been moved off of the front wall and are now hanging at the Dolby defined angle for Atmos front overhead speakers. I like the results when playing back films being decoded with DTS NEO:X

When I select playback to use both the front and wide channels I do like the results. I prefer using wide over using back surround. I do know that Dolby DSU does not use wide speakers and it is a big maybe if future Atmos decoding will use them. Then there is DTS... Will DTS:X use wides. I hope so. In my theater the wides really contribute a lot to the panning effects from front to back or the reverse. I also have played back films like Master and Commander of the Far Side of the World. The left and right speakers reproduce sounds aboard ship. The wide channels play back ocean sounds with no bleed over of audio from onboard sounds.

Like your theater my side surrounds are behind the listening position. They are at the 110 degree mark. So the wides do a nice fill along my wall. When I discover more about DTS:X using wides or not, I will consider moving my wide speakers out to a wider angle. For now, I like what I hear from them. I will miss them if DTS:X does away with wides. Looking at the DTS web site now does not show wides for Neo:X like they used to. So it makes me wonder? I would still wire for that position though.


----------



## Peter Loeser (Aug 11, 2012)

Atmos can accommodate additional speakers along the side and front between the mains and surrounds (in the region where the wides normally sit), although I have yet to see any mainstream receivers implement them. Starting with a 5.1 soundtrack and upmixing to add rears or wides, I agree that in many cases the wides make a more noticeable difference. I like the effect, though I think there are plenty that wouldn't consider it an improvement. A matter of taste. Although I've gone to Atmos, I'm hanging onto my wides, and still use them occasionally.


----------



## vblaze20 (Jan 21, 2020)

I am planning to use wides for Atmos. Do not know how it will work but give it a a shot.


----------



## phillihp23 (Mar 14, 2012)

Due too wides not currently incorporated in most material DTSX or Atmos, currently. I used a mixer too run my front wides....it takes from the L/R surrounds and L/R mains and mixes to the L/R wides.
This way I can run 9.x.4 DTSX and 9.x.6 Atmos rather than, 7.x.4 DTSX and 7.x.6 Atmos. Hopefully the eventual release of DTSX Pro will resolve the wide issue. This requires a separate amp which I have and a simple mixer.


----------

