LIkewise - thanks for the conversation. Since you actually have a working setup, its interesting to hear your experience.
You might be right about AudioHolics, but irrespective of that example, I do get the broader impression that there is some flexibility in many expert's minds about the role of bipoles, whereas dipoles are generically frowned on. Your statement about Dolby's primary recommendation though is a factual one, and I believe unambiguously correct.
Let me drill down into one comment:
If one of the right surrounds is placed for a front row of seats, and the other for the rear row, most of the directionality of these monopole speakers is set to impact just that row and now "spray" into the other row. That surround speaker that is closer to being in-line with that row of seats will be what the listeners in that row hear as their, in this example, right surround speaker, and not have much "muddying" from the other surround speaker.
This is different from my impression (which may be wrong) and actually sounds more like the older idea of a speaker "array", where every row gets identical information, but their own "copy" of it (which is more or less what the QS8's were designed originally to emulate in a single unit, if I understand). My perception of Atmos goes the other way, emphasizing the notion (ideally) that the variety of speakers is there to impart greater localization and mobility of sound for all listeners (all of whom are getting cues from the full complement of drivers). Thoughts / Clarifications?
