Slanted ceilings are, acoustically speaking, a good thing because it means that at least two parts of your six sided box(I.e., your listening room)are not parallel.Split the difference with the setup mike? IDK. I wonder if he would hear it differently but then everyone does, don't they? The good thing is it's yours and you can set it up however it pleases you.
EDIT: I meant to add that moving my audio gear to a bedroom from a larger room had some challenges but I worked through them. I know that's not always easy but I got lucky, I guess.
(The ceilings are the same height, but mine are slanted which sort of brings other challenges.)
).With the caveat being that, in order to more closely approximate an Atmos-like experience, your tweeters sitting close to the ceiling would ideally also be fed different discrete material relative to the speakers below. I don’t say that to in any way demean your listening setup. We, after all, more often than not, have to make compromises based on a variety of individual, real life parameters. I’m just saying that a physically two tiered 5.1 system, while fantastically wonderful and greatly enjoyable, cannot simulate Atmos any more than stereo can be simulated by double mono.
Brian was also deaf in one ear. The Pet Sounds mix in surround(I believe that it’s in 5.0) is nothing special.
As they say, YMMV. For me, movies are the icing on the cake.
I'm with you on that, went Atmos for movies but now it's mainly for music. Rarely watch movies anymore but saw Dune and the latest Matrix on my setup and they were good. Also have enjoyed the Mandalorian and Boba Fett on Disney+.
That's the thing, I don't do movies...but obviously could. I find no enjoyment from them. Now, if it's a movie about music....I can do that.
You had me until you said to cut back on beer.Come on guys, quit with all the excuses and such, ya sound just like the "stereo only" guys talking about any multich rigs.
There are some excellent compromises available, the SVS Prime Elevations like mine or many others can be mounted high on the side walls to great effect.
Get off y'all butts, pull out the wallets, and move forward.
Just cut back on the beer and ice cream budgets for a few months.
According to Linett, whose interview I just re-read out of Surround Sound Professional and has worked with Wilson for many years, Brian's deafness was not a factor in why he chose to mix in mono. Linett stated it was 1) Brian's admiration of Phil Spector, 2) AM radio was the most used format for the listening experience at that time and 3)you can't mess up a carefully done mono mix - one speaker - no worries. I assume that Linett and Wilson discussed the subject since they were working together on mixes.
It was manipulating the phase relationships and EQ tricks mostly - at least that's what it sounds like to me.
IIRC, they called it "mono reprocessed for stereo."
I agree 100%. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that Brian's deafness was the reason to mix in mono, rather, I just meant to state it as an aside. Mono was all about radio play.
OK, enough sensory trivia.
