All, I purchased a complete set of Axiom speakers for a 7.1 configuration more than 10 years back, which along with a Denon 3805 and a Denon universal DVD player, 'made my cup overflow' with music bliss (OK on the visual side with a Panny 42" TV).

Five years back, a Hsu sub added the oomph for classical tracks that are on the low frequency side like organ music, and for movies like U-571. A few years back I sprung for a projector and a BD player (with 7.1 analog outputs) that significantly improved the visual side of my previously music focused configuration. A day back I purchased a new Marantz SR6011 Dolby Atmos (supports 11.2 with extra amp) receiver. Though the Denon 3805 was a great receiver (driving the 4 ohm M80s with ease, and supporting 7.1 analog inputs for either the Universal DVD OR BD player), the lack of HDMI was getting to be increasing a serious handicap.

Now, the $1,000 question. Since my media room measures 16' long, 15' wide, and 10' feet high, would I be served best with TWO sets of ceiling speakers, or one pair? If the spend on the extra $500 will not provide me an appreciable increase in fidelity on the sound track of movies with overhead action, especially given the length of my room, then I don't think I need the 2nd pair.

Aside
The seating position (4 seats) is roughly 9' from the screen in a slight arc. The rear speakers are 7' behind the seating area (the room being 16' long). I'll have to lower the sides/rear QS8s to eye level based on the Dolby Atmos preferred room configuration for a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 configuration . Additionally, I"ll move the seats 1-2 feet in front.

Would appreciate your insights you all on the ceiling speaker configuration. Over the years, I've come to respect the friendly camaraderie, and expertise in this forum, don't think I'll be disappointed!

7.1.4
Lol

I subscribe the the 'more is better' idea as well, but would appreciate a little more color as to 'why'?

Thanks brwsaw.

I see this referring to a 7.1.4 setup as a 'reference' arrangement, so I guess my question is answered by both brsaw and Dolby Labs!

As someone who has had an Atmos setup in my theater for about 18 months I can say this... Go 7.1.4. You will be lacking the full experience with only 2 overheads.

Heck, I would recommend 5.1.4 over 7.1.2 as well.

Don't get me started on non-direct radiating (monopole) surround speakers though...

I traded in 4 QS8s and got 4 M3s for surround duty too, but again, don't get me started. LOL

Get 4 M3 speakers overhead, drop down your surrounds like you mentioned, and give it a whirl.

nickbuol, on the same page as far as four sets of ceiling speakers.

Now, not to start a 'holy war', but could you please help me understand the issues with the QS8s that I have for sides and rears if I were to reuse them in a 7.1.4 Atmos setup (assuming I lower them to ear level)?

In other words, did you have a chance to compare 4 QS8s for sides/rears with 4 M3s for the same areas?

Short version.

I had four QS8s for my (previously) 7.1 setup. It was great.

Dolby (highly) recommends mono-pole speakers for all locations in an Atmos setup.

I traded in all of my QS8s for on-wall M3s. It really helps Atmos (and DTS:X) to better pinpoint sounds within a 3D space.


Longer version:
Atmos uses sound object within movies, and it takes multiple speakers to create those object to defined points within the 3D space of your room. Using bi/di/quad-pole speakers doesn't allow a system (receiver or pre/pro that is processing the audio) to use pinpoint accuracy to create those sounds since they are designed to spread the sound all around into a surround space.

With all of that said, I am not saying that it couldn't work or even work well, but when I specifically asked a Dolby tech at CEDIA back when they announced Dolby Atmos for the home about bi/di/quad-pole speakers, and he really said that it was "less than ideal" and made sort of a grimacing face. That alone was enough to convince me to change out the speakers from quad-pole QS8s for mono-pole M3s. It cost me my four QS8s, a VP150 (I had upgraded a few years earlier to a VP180), some Axiom Bucks, a sale price, and still some money to do it, but in my opinion it was worth it for me. It may or may not be for you.

Keep in mind that you can always set things up with QS8s for now and see how you like it. You would need to lower the surround speakers either way, so that needs to happen regardless of the type of speaker, so you can try the QS8 setup with Atmos without any additional cost.

Fwiw my argument wasn't for "more is better" but rather with 4 (or more) points above you it will work better as a system.
5.1 can be really good. 5.1.4 should be incredible.
I've gone back and forth between 5.1 and 7.1 and have had 5.1 layouts which were more immersive than most of the 7.1 layouts I've tried.
My poor mans atmos was to lower my towers to the ground, have my L&R (QS8's) surrounds with the bottom driver at ear height when seated and my rear surrounds (direct firing at the time) at ear height for my back row (18 inches higher than my QS8's).
The first time I watched Star Trek after the set up my head turned as a spear flew by me. When I watched Band of Brothers I was in a fox hole surrounded by troops crossing behind me and to my left while bullets wizzed by.
Atmos will be apart of any room I own in the future. My 7'2" ceiling height and lack of extra funds limit me at this time.

Like Nick, with Nicks recommendations, I have completely changed my setup slightly different than nick....4 Ceiling M3s and 4 M22 Onwalls for the walls. Of course I still have 80s across the front and 3 subs, moooo haaa haaaaa

A couple of years back I had asked the forum gurus to help me design a Dolby Atmos enabled home theater. I joined the Axiom bandwagon many moons back (circa 2005) with QS8s/M80/VP180 (and a Hsu sub VTF-3 MK II), married to a Denon 3805, in a 7.1 configuration. It was great for its time. But as the years went by ... the lack for HDMI support on the receiver -- and -- for the exciting new Dolby Atmos sound format compelled, me to upgrade.

Both Ian (big thank you), and forum experts helped me do just that. With their help I ended up with a 7.1.4 configuration (two new pairs of ceiling speakers, M3 on walls for sides and rears replacing my QS8s). This is on top of a 4K projector setup (Epson 5040UB)/Apple 4K media streamer, as well as 9.1 receiver (Marantz SR6012) and an external power amp (Monoprice Unity series) to drive the overall setup.

I also added sound deadening through the use of GIK Acoustics bass traps.

The result has been extremely pleasing. As I watch content on Netflix, Prime, and lately Star Wars movies on Disney +, it demonstrates how *vital, tangible and enjoyable* the impact of quality speakers is, to the overall enjoyment in a home theater. Obviously, a good 4K/HDR setup, and a light controlled room, is vital to the experience as well, but a high quality arrangement on the audio side is equally vital IMHO. I sometimes catch myself realizing I never heard something with this level of accuracy and clarity (esp a well mastered Atmos movie) in the movie theater (e.g. Apocalypse now, Black Panther, Alita Battle Angel, the many Star Wars movies, Blade Runner 2049 etc).

Ian and forum experts, a big thank you!

Did you try out QS8s with your Atmos set-up?

Mojo -- I did not. When I heard nickbuol describe his conversations with a Dolby Labs representative, I understood conceptually the challenges presented by a multi-polar speaker, esp when tracking audio objects in a 3 dimensional space. So, I did not second guess his reco, just traded in the QS8s for the on wall M3s.

Very happy I made that decision. The ambiance is terrific. The audio is super clear. The overhead soundstage is very clean from the overhead ceiling speakers as well. The HT installer was very appreciative of the quality of the on wall brackets (the speaker just hangs off the bracket both structurally and from a connectivity standpoint, no need to strip out the ends of the copper wire and thread into the holes at the back of the speaker), as well as the overall robustness of the ceiling M3s.

Alright, thanks. I'm in no hurry. My v4 gear has totally changed my 5.1 game. Now waiting for my Onk to die before jumping into Atmos. I may be waiting a long time. My 1990 yammie and 2005 Denon are still going.

I'll be trying QS10s. I'll also try M2OW and 160OW on the sides and ceiling.

I'm considering picking up a pair of M3 or VP100 on-wall speakers to suspend from my ceiling for use as an overhead Atmos audio channel.

Has anyone successfully mounted these to a ceiling?

Nick Boul has successfully hung M3 on-walls on the ceiling with FMBs. I’m trying the same. I will also try mounting them flush with my own bracket. On one hand you can aim them with the FMB. On the other, on-walls are designed to be mounted flush and tops are supposed to point straight down. I suspect that placement and ceiling height plays a big role in determining which method is better.

I’m also hanging M3 bookshelves for heights using a FMCB. To do this they actually hang sideways.

Note that Axiom needs to modify the inserts for either of those speaker to be hung that way. So, they need to know your intent when you place your order. Also, if you mod the M3ow inserts for the FMB they will not be usable with a T bracket.

So would it be better to lower the surrounds to ear level and add height speakers? I've been debating whether to add additional wiring to lower the surrounds to stands ( patio door prevents me from lowering them on wall on one side). Trying to think of all scenarios while I have the walls ripped out.

It might not be the simple answer your after but i think it best to figure out a lot of this stuff yourself as you are the one who knows your room and what your after. I can only guess.

The best single document I’ve found on speaker placement is the one from Trinnov

trinnov-speaker-layout-guide

It will impart some real insight into how and why surrounds are positioned in all 3 formats: ATMOS, DTS-X, & Auro-3d. Their product is much more flexible on placement then anything a mere mortal would own. So, for the money challenged (those of us who might balk at spending 20 to 30k on a processor) we need to think a bit more because your room and what format you favor will have an impact on placement. This can be a fairly deep rat hole ... so, if you have the interest and time ...

You can start digging into the ATMOS and Aruro-3d specs (DTS:X claims they can use whatever)

atmos-installation-guidelines.pdf

Auro-3D-Home-Theater-Setup-Guidelines_lores.pdf

and overlaying that on the layout of your room and the listening area you are trying to create. Now you can create your best compromise.

Of course most don’t go this deep and they seem to be happy with the out comes

I'm a stickler for sound. If I am going to invest, even what I've put in so far, I want to have great sound. I have so much flexibility right now with no walls up and a clean slate I'm trying to research as much as possible to try to get it correct so I won't have to tear the walls down again. I will read through those guides.

I'd recommend going with onwall M3s for the surround and rear speakers, and the ceiling M3s for the overhead. I consulted with the Dolby Atmos guide for a 7.1.4 configuration, and it served me well.

Blade Runner 2049, Sicario, Alita Battle Angel, the various Star Wars movies, all had a terrific overhead sonic presentation, and I thoroughly enjoyed my upgraded Axiom speaker package. The only 'legacy' Axiom speakers in my set up are M80s and VP150 from circa 2005. I paid a good chunk of change for them, and did not think I needed an upgrade .

Obviously, there are qualified acoustic experts in this forum and they may have a different perspective than I have above.

Best,

edvacdude

Excellent!

Note that ATMOS does not mention this directly but if you look at enough of their layouts you’ll notice that recommend placement of the mid tops change if you have only 1 row (vs 3,5,...)

Have fun

After trying every M3 Axiom makes (except the built-in version) the in ceiling ones were the most disappointing. I’d use them only if aesthetics are an overriding factor. The on-walls, on the other hand, are incredibly good and I’d use them without hesitation.

Thanks rrlev! The link below describes my configuration ... https://www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/7.1.4-overhead-speaker-setup-guide/

Rrlev, would be curious to know how you compared them -- a 'double blind' test etc, types of music etc. Given how passionate Ian and team are, surprised they didn't tweak the two to provide comparable acoustics ... appreciate your thoughts, and thanks in advance!

Ian and gang did the best they could but couldn't defy physics. They did a damned great job on the on-walls though! Highly recommend M5 and M2OW. I haven't tried any others.

I felt the same way. When I did the original comparison I just lined up the four types of M3's I had and gave each a listen. I already knew the M3 bookshelves and was extremely impressed with the M3ow (tested ports up sitting against the wall with an M3 as a stand) ... sounded as good as the bookshelf. The in-wall and in-ceiling fell way short in the low-end but at the time I didn't have them installed in a wall or ceiling so I needed to wait before coming to a conclusion. In the end I decided that I had several rooms where aesthetics were important. So, I installed the in-ceilings in those rooms. Bottom line, I was disappointed. Not even close to a M3 (and I did try some M3 bookshelves in the kitchen). They do sound better in smaller rooms like my master bathroom but still not close to the bookshelf IMO. One of the things I want to try is to bump the base a bit ... I think that might make a world of difference but since the Transformer doesn't have any sort of base boost or equalizer, at least that I've found, I haven't tried it yet.

Sorry, only subjective opinion ... no blind, double bind, or any kind of rigorous testing here ... but that said ... Go with the on-walls

Agreed.

The only part where I'm confused is the directionality that on wall speakers have ... tweeters on top, midrange at the bottom. In an on-ceiling configuration, wouldn't that distort the sound stage?

Additionally, would ceiling speakers have to render a lot of bass?

Sorry, just trying to understand, appreciate the feedback!

I started off thinking that you needed to have a good image between each set of speakers; surround or otherwise. And this works for a single listener ... you can have a great surround setup with very few speakers for one listener ... the listening area being a single point, the MLP. As the more listeners are added, as the listening area expands (the box drawn around all the listeners) you need more speakers for all of them to localize a sound as coming from the same point. Imaging still works for the group of listeners in, or close to, the sweet spot. But people who fall out of it may find that sounds do not move smoothly from one place to another.

If you’re sitting right next to the side surround that speaker dominates. An object gliding from front to back may sound like it jumps from the front to the side, hangs a bit and then jumps to the back. Adding more speakers would smooth out that transition.

Now as far as how full range do the surrounds need to be ... well the general consensus seems to be the fuller the better. If a truck is rumbling by ... how much of that rumble is directional. It’s a compromise... I went with M5s for bed surrounds and M3s for everything else but I’m sure M3s or M2s would have been fine for all of them.

Unintended post

rrlev, I really appreciate the thoughtful back and forth. Pls allow me to excerpt this blurb from the Dolby site, would appreciate your thoughts, and if nickbuol is available, his as well.

The specific phrase that appears to match the M3 overheads is 'wide dispersion pattern', and 'timbre matching'. They did not speak to a full frequency response. But pls refer to the excerpt further down below.

"Dolby Atmos audio is mixed using discrete, full-range audio objects that may move around
anywhere in three-dimensional space. With this in mind, overhead speakers should
complement the frequency response, output, and power-handling capabilities of the
listener-level speakers. Choose overhead speakers that are timbre matched as closely as
possible to the primary listener-level speakers. Overhead speakers with a wide dispersion
pattern are desirable for use in a Dolby Atmos system. This will ensure the closest
replication of the cinematic environment, where overhead speakers are placed high above
the listeners. "

Additionally, in the below, 100Hz-10Khz is the audio band that appears critical, thought a wider band is preferable. I wonder how the Overhead M3s compare to an on wall in the 100-300Hz range.

"If the chosen overhead speakers have a wide dispersion pattern (approximately 45 degrees
from the acoustical reference axis over the audio band from 100 Hz to 10 kHz or wider), then
speakers may be mounted facing directly downward. For speakers with narrower dispersion
patterns, those with aimable or angled elements should be angled toward the primary
listening position. "

Reference, page 7 from: https://www.dolby.com/siteassets/te...-installation-guidelines-121318_r3.1.pdf

How far from the ceiling will your ears-brain be?

I do not know the dispersion pattern of the any of the M3 types. I think Mojo once mentioned something about a number when we were discussing in-ceiling imaging way back. From my experience, I think you’re fine with assuming a wide dispersion for both these speakers ... maybe someone else might want to comment on this.

Depending on the trade offs made on ceiling placement, your ceiling height, and the size of your listening area you might need to aim them. When hard wiring speakers (especially if in-ceiling) you will need to know your placement up front. You’ll have a good idea if you’ll need to aim them but ultimately you will decide it by experimenting.

BTW: One of the big advantages of using on-walls is that you can move the speaker a few feet with the only downside of how to hide the speaker wire (which is not much of a downside).

About 8-9 feet ...

8 to 9 feet is very sweet. You won't have any issues with multiple drivers from an M2, M3, or M5 fusing at that distance.

The M3 bookshelf sounds very nice. I haven't heard the M3OW but knowing how the M5 and M2OW perform, I'd say the M3 is good too.

There are big differences between the M3 and the M2/M5HP. The M3 lacks a dedicated mid-woofer driver. That affects the timber of the midrange. This sound can be described as less detailed. Admittedly, sometimes I like this sound. But if you want to follow the Dolby recommendations, all speakers need to have the same timber. If you had M50 or M3 fronts, that wouldn't be a problem but with your M80s, the M3s would not be timber-matched. Besides, I think you'd benefit with improved emotional impact with overheads that present more detailed mids.

That then leaves the question of whether M5s or M2s are more appropriate. I still struggle between these two. Without a sub, hands-down it's the M5 although room acoustics can interfere and create bass bloat. But with a sub, it's really too difficult for me to tell which I prefer without A/Bing them side-by-side. For those who don't want to fudge with EQ or placement within the room, I'll always recommend M2s.

The M5 has the same bump the M3 has around 100Hz. That may or may not be a factor given your floor to ceiling distance. Trevor would know better.

Yes, Nick Buol. Can be done. Not a good idea though. In ceiling speakers have concentric drivers so response is the same in all directions more or less. Vertically arranged drivers should be used as intended as they roll off or “lobe” treble once you listen below the tweeter axis.

Yes. Plans coming. Your basement is messed up but we can fix it.

Yes.

No.

Don't think you have enough info to say that Mojo ... need the ceiling height, the listening area width, and if he's going for Atmos only or if Auro is in the mix ... and that's at a minimum.

As far as an M3 or M2 (don't know if you want to hang an M5 on the ceiling and distance to listener would be a bigger factor). I think both are matched well enough. The M3 will sound slightly deeper then the M2 but your giving up some clarity in the mid range. I went with M3's as I felt that one would not notice the difference as a surround is not something you're going to be doing critical listening with. Both are damn good even as mains when a sub is in the mix. Perhaps my ears are not good enough anymore as I only hear the difference when listening for what I know from side by side testing (Mojo probably has a better ear and sonic memory).

I can not speak to Trever's concentric lobe stuff ... as I've never noticed it in real life. So, You know my take ... it's MHO and your milage my vary.

Apologies rrlev, but I tend to agree with TrevorM's position on in-ceiling speakers. Especially when there are multiple listeners, or multiple rows of seating. The Dolby spec also suggested to use sound absorbing material thusly (page 9 in the link I previously shared) "To improve sound quality and reduce unwanted audio reflection, we recommend using sound-absorbing and sound-diffusing treatment to handle reflections from the walls, floor, and ceiling."

In my case, I have the two M80 fronts, a VP150, four M3s for sides/rears at ear level, and four overhead in ceiling M3s. More importantly, I also have sound absorbing baffles from GIK acoustics (https://www.gikacoustics.com/product/gik-acoustics-room-kit-package-1/) to reduce slap echoes. The end result was a tight sonic presentation (materially better compared to my prior system that had QS8s for sides/rears, no overhead speakers).

No Apologies needed ...

I'm not an expert in this stuff and Trever has a lot more experience ...
I'm just giving you the info I know and my opinion on how I would handle it.

It is almost impossible to build any room without some compromise somewhere. If you already have the items I would go ahead and put them in.

The round M3's do just fine for ceiling applications. It's not like there's that much data that gets sent to them, so worrying about having the best full-range speaker over your head just doesn't matter that much. I have two rows, and they are 4' apart, with my single row of seats placed equidistant to both rows of speakers. Even with them being this close together, I can detect the directional movement of objects over my head. I use M3 on walls for my side and rear surround channels - all as close to ear level as I could get them. Good Atmos tracks sound pretty amazing. I definitely get the whole "bubble" of sound thing Atmos touts.

Except in video games.

In ceilings should be as capable as the side and rear surround channels in a setup. Ideally all channels should overlap the subwoofer crossover frequency by a half octave.

Ie. crossing at 80hz means you want speakers capable to 45-50hz if possible.

If you need more low end output, look into an open back option and build a back box. Using Roxul comfortboard 80 is a great choice. It will friction fit in the joist space. Stiff, acts as a back wave absorber, and knocks down sound transmission into next floor.

https://imgpile.com/images/72lTuc.jpg

https://imgpile.com/images/72lbJN.jpg

It's hard to believe the difference a higher fidelity speaker makes for surround duty until you hear it. One of the reasons I'm not entertaining Atmos is low ceilings. I figure I need 6 feet of distance from ears to the ceiling for proper driver integration.

This has been a great discussion and it makes me think about using M5OW as surround channels. M3OW would be fine in my space, as they are each 8’ or so from the MLP. If I get full integration at 8’ they will be M5OW.

I will take some measurements on the vertical plane and post the graphs here. If in fact there is an integration distance in which all drivers essentially blend evenly off vertical axis I will let you know. I dont believe this works with an M5 but will an M3.

Mojo with low ceilings and closeplacement the M3IC may be fine for you as in Michaeld’s setup. Pretty sure his room is set up properly so I would trust his input.

Trevor thanks again for the plans. We have already started to plan to build out the areas in the basement to make it more symmetrical. Wife is completely on board with the changes and it was easy to sell her on the equipment room to clean everything out from under the tv except the center channel. We are going to pull down the insulation for the overheads to make sure ducts and gas lines won't be in the way. I think we are going to move the QS10s as rear room zone 2 speakers to play music once I get the room changed and ready to set up the m3ow. I saw Mojo's comment up top and I was thinking along the lines of timber matching, would m5ow be a better option for the surrounds or is the distancing in my room better suited for the m3ow?

Yes, you can do that. Just make sure your tweeter when mounted in the end is at no higher than 5'. 4ft better. If they end up in my room I will plan for an inverted install. (My roughin was originally for wall brackets at 5')

Based on measurements taken this morning, using M5HP as surrounds is best if you can mount them low enough that you are +/- 10 degrees on the tweeter axis to ear height. They measured exceptionally well at 10 degrees under the listener axis. (Mojo does a cartwheel. ) Like other multiway speakers, they lobe under the tweeter axis a bit (but pretty acceptable actually.)

The horizontal plot was pretty consistent out to 20 degrees. Easily within a +/- 5db in room window.

+/- 20 vert degrees is more peaky in the response. Of course, I am being fussy. All in all they measured pretty dang well in a real room at 1m. Measurements confirmed they are designed to be listened to on axis horizontally and vertically.

The average of plots in each direction were exceptional. +/- 2.5db in room at 1m.

I will be putting M5OW in my room as surrounds at some point. I would not use them on a ceiling.

If anyone wants the files feel free to PM me with an email address and I will send you a zipped folder with all the plots. The M5HPs measured very well. Again, what a speaker. The averages will give you an idea of in room response above 200hz.

Average Horizontal- On axis to 30 degrees. Below 200hz ignore. Room loading near corner.



Average Vertical- On axis to +/-30 degrees. Below 200hz ignore. Room loading near corner.



Honey Axis listener +10 degrees above tweeter. The Mojo Axis.



Danger territory. 20 degrees below tweeter. Below 200hz ignore. Room loading near corner.

Sorry, I didn't really answer your question.

No, I don't think timber is as important as everyone worries about within reason.

Best thing to do is stick to speakers with similar response\output or use a sophisticated calibration setup like Dirac if not. Not worth getting stuck on IMO. The speakers in your design will match just fine (ceilings included.)

I use 3 different brands in my theater right now.

Oh, just thought of a couple of data points on in-ceilings I should share:

• the tweeter can be aimed no-more then 10 degrees or so before hitting the grill. If you have one you can tell us the exact number (All mine are installed and I'm too lazy to get a ladder and experiment).
• with the speakers 9' apart I still get a decent image when my ear is 4' from the ceiling when centered between them.

Trever,

Interesting charts ... guess the real question is can you hear it?
Now I'm going to have listening to all the speakers at various heights... luckily it's a quick and easy thing to try.

On the inverted install: does that mean you'll put the tweeters 10 degrees above ear level? That sounds interesting. If I do it the other way some surrounds might be blocked by furniture ... on the other hand it reduces the separation between the beds and heights (might be able to move the heights more into the room if I put them in and it's a problem).

P.S. I'll have to try that LARSA module ...

Wow. Just wow. So this proves I wasn't imagining things.

I look forward to reviewing all the charts later. Thanks, Trevor.

Ok Mojo. Send in a bit.

Yep, rrlev. Going to likely go upside down with mid and woofer above. Tests first for sure. If you beat me to it please share what you find. Everything tells me it will be A-Ok based on messing with raised towers in an old setup. The image stuck to the tweeter.

But readin bout skinning a dear and skinning a dear just arent the same thing.

Oh! Btw, mount your ceiling M3OW to ceiling tweeters in towards middle of room. Woofers to walls.

How do you mount them upside down or to the ceiling?

On the M3's and M3ow's Axiom will put in inserts so you can mount them on FMBs or FMCBs but you need to request them up front. With the M5's & M5ow's I assume you can do the same ...

All the bookshelves come standard with a single insert in the back which I think is for a FMB. But I'd verify it's use with Axiom before using it. Especially the M5 given its weight (don't want to find your M5 on the floor because the insert worked its way though the ply).

I'd imagine that Axiom would do this also if you want to invert your speaker. I'm going to ask if inverting it is ok sound wise. The only other problem I can think of is that dust might enter the ports since they are facing up. That might be solved with some AT material.

Another way to approach this is by putting some screws in the back of the on-wall and figuring out some sort of bracket.

Note: that axiom will put in binding posts on the M3ow's when inserts are requested for FMBs and you loose the T bracket. It might be possible to keep the T if you pass on the binding posts ... another question for Axiom. Then you can just use the T as a connector and still have the option of mounting it the other way. I personally would not use the T if flush mounting to the ceiling. If I decide to do that I'll design a bracket ...

If I use FMBs I was thinking that you'd want to aim them ports pointing toward the ceiling ... which would put them the other way ... hmmmm ... this will be an experiment.

If you mount the m5ow with the tweeter at 10º below ear level will the sides/back of the couch affect the sound of the midrange drivers if they are below the top of the couch?

If the M5OW are used as rears, the 10 degree tweeter thing doesn't matter. It matters for front soundstage virtualization only.

These would be for side surrounds.

Aye. That there be needin' some 'sperimentation, laddie.

Ahhh, I see. In that case I would say you’re fine. Was thinking you were mounting sideways.

Wont those stick down 13” or so? If you have the height I guess all good.

Mount 5’ to tweeter. Then you are fine.

If you go with an M3OW same if you want.

I left 5’ or so off your sidewalls for in-ceiling Atmos locations -so plenty of seperation to get well defined height vs side sound if you are worried about 5’ to tweeter.

I am going to invert my sidewall M5OWs because my ceilings are 7’6”. I would like to get my tweeters down to 4’6” if possible. Much smaller room than yours.

M5OW ordered. I'm going to move the qs10s to zone 2 for the back of the room or maybe rears temporarily.

What finish did you get?

Ebony

Like my M50s. Very cool!

Next up is the ADA1500 and another 600

If it's a 1500-3 for your fronts, you'd be fine with a 1250-3. The 1250 has the same "noise performance" as the 1500 but less power which is still more power than you need.

Planning on a 5 channel amp and if I upgrade to actives I would only need to add one additional 5 channel amp at that time.

In my case I have a Marantz 6012 and a Monoprice external amplifier for a 7.1.4 configuration. The receiver handles 9 channels of amplification and the external amp provides power for the remaining 2. While I listen to music at high volume levels, and watch movies at a level that Mrs and kiddo complain, I'm unable to go beyond 40% of the volume control knob on the receiver, so I have more than enough amplification bandwidth. Plus the M80s are 4ohm speakers.

Your needs will likely vary, but the above is just a data point.

ASIDE

I remember someone in the last few years mentioning that it is moot how loud a system can get to, it is how loud one wants to hear music and watch movies, so that one's hearing is preserved SMILE. I don't remember who said this, but it was in this forum for sure SMILE.

Canes, I think the 1250-5 vs the 1500-5 very much depends on whether you'd be planning to play the active LFRs full range. If you cut them off at 80Hz, the 1250 will work for your case even for party levels. But how can you possibly know until you try it? I suppose if you want the ultimate in flexibility/performance, the 1500 is the way to go.

Edvacdude, receivers made over the last 20 years have some pretty effective dynamic compression methods implemented. I'd be wondering if that compression is kicking in. The protection circuit on my Onk is quite effective. I can crank it all the way to +15 and my Onk won't shut down or get hot. It's bloody aggravating though!

I really like the protection on the ADAs. It silently turns the channel off and brings it back on when the "overload" has cleared.

I lean towards the 1500 just because I am of the mindset of it's better to have it and not need it vs not having it and needing it. The 1500 although more expensive affords me the flexibility and it gives me more reserve power if it were ever needed. Unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure of hearing the 1100s but I have been running the 100s full range especially for movies. I sometimes flip between full range and 80hz for music. For studio music I tend to like full range and for live concerts 80hz. Mostly due to the fact I listen to studio on direct setting and live on multi channel surround setting.

That's a great point Mojo. In my prior receiver (Denon 3805, a high current beast), it would get VERY hot at high listening levels, but it would keep on cranking. I sold it after 10 years of use on ebay, and it was working just fine .

I will check the Marantz today to see how 'hot' it gets. Not sure if it does dynamic compression, I will check it out.

The active 1100s are far more linear than the M100s on the low end. Take a look at how Ian tuned them. That makes them excellent, bass-wise, even for smaller rooms like my 1920 cu. ft. living room. The only problem with the smaller rooms is that they may not totally acoustically disappear.

That freakin' active LFR bass man...it was just so unholy in my living room!!! I'll never forget that and neither will all those who listened to them. On the Model C, Ian will have 12" drivers with improved compensation for room sizes and boundaries.

You can easily hear the difference in imaging, bass, mids and treble with the actives vs. the M100s.

You don't need so-called golden ears. And it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to compare the listening window and sound power curves to know that the spinorama for M100s is a roller coaster ride compared to the actives. The M80s are even worse!

The M100s sound so good until you hear the actives. It's all a matter of perspective I suppose.

Most of my freinds, even the ones who claim to want and appreciate great sound, are not willing to sit down and do any critical listening for more then 30 seconds or so. I do think your right in the respect that if they hear the right recording on a great system their ears would perk up ... and perhaps I’d get a “Whoa”

For my family on the other hand sound systems fall into the category of It’s good enough if it fills the room (or in the case of my kids and their iPhone if it’s below 40% THD). They are not interested in sound stage, dynamics, or actuate reproduction. Although, my wife asked me the other day when was I going to fix the setup in the kitchen (M3ic). Maybe things are looking up.

Edvacdude, Marantz claims that receiver can play at 70% of continuous rated power on each channel with every channel driven. That's fine but it's not so much about continuous rated power as it is with peak or dynamic power. You'll never listen to 70 continuous Watts but you may have a need for 320 peak Watts on two or more channels. I'll bet the Marantz or my Onk can't do that. The ADA-1000 can - on up to 8 channels!

Careful. Don't blow it up!

My friends and family were the same way, Rich. Now they demand the same experience I enjoy. Properly placed M100s and M5s are not enough for them. It actually makes me very sad because actives aren't for everyone. There are room and financial constraints.

Yeah... Im not allowed to sell the old surrounds off until the replacements are here. Was going to use the money to put towards them with tax return.

I was warned. “Zero downtime permitted.” Lol.

My replacement ALFRs came yesterday and today I thought I'd get them out of the garage. While at it I thought that you guys might enjoy a picture:

That is a convincing Corrugated Cordoba Cardboard finish.

That's cheating..... You're supposed to drag things around with an appliance dolley, banging crap into walls, losing them down flights of stairs and throwing your back out so you can really appreciate your efforts.

Michael, I'm getting too old for that sort of thing ...
That beam is there for moving really heavy stuff. Large speakers are just a side gig.

You've installed a beam to move heavy stuff from upstairs to down?

and downstairs to up ... some of the machines in the shop are like 700 lbs+

Well...I don't know what kind of a house this is. You have beams to move stuff, both up and down, you have a machine shop with heavy gear and some of that gear needs to be moved to the basement. Or is the shop in the basement and some gear has to be moved upstairs? I mean, what the hell kind of a show are you running there, Rich? I thought you build software. Why are you futzing with beams and 700 pound machines? Something's not right.

I'm an ADHD kind of guy ... keep jumping around from one thing to another

Hee hee hee...you are nuts like me.

pretty sure I'm not that crazy

You are getting there though, yeah? You are getting there.

Outstanding! Good stuff.