Agreed. A good setup room with stereo positioning can be hard to beat in most rooms and not just small rooms. However, I have a room size of 13ft by 11ft with a 5.2.2 Dolby Atmos setup. and it sounds immersive and engaging. The subwoofer is downwards firing so you get a lot of bass energy in the room and you can certainly feel the bass too. Sometimes it is more to do with feeling the bass rather than hearing it, and in a small room, you can certainly do both. I would argue that a small room is actually an ideal room for both watching and listening to movies and music. The dimensions are optimal (as long as you apply some room acoustics with absorption panels and some diffuser panels in the right areas to both tighten the sound and also widen it giving a more spacious sound. If you are willing to spend some fine-tuning your room, the results can be dramatic and exhilarating. Your money your choice. Enjoy.

I’ve only ever had small room 5.1. It works. My sub is way oversized for my space (got it on a great deal) but I keep it down… my neighbours don’t like me knocking the plaster off their drywall screws. It’s all I’ve known. I love it.

i have a 13 x15 x 7ft home theatre room. 22 yrs ago I started with a 5.1 system, a half decent AVR and an SPL meter and set it up for both stereo listening (still my preferred configuration for most music) and 5.1 for movies (and some TV). I loved the sound for nearly 2 decades and felt I wasn't missing anything by not going to 7.1. The only thing I felt needed improvement was smother (more uniform) base response in all listening positions. Four years ago I got a new projector and upgraded the AVR to a better one with 9 channels. I then added a 2nd sub (now 5.2 system) and really felt that was a significant improvement in more uniform and dynamic base performance. I then upgraded the centre vp150 with a vp160. That was the biggest improvement of the two. Finally, with 4 unused channels on my AVR and the hype and trend of movies going to Atmos, I decided what the heck and added 4 height speakers (now 5.2.4 system). They added a bit of spaciousness to some parts of some movies but not a lot. If I did it again, the improved centre channel was the best improvement and most cost efficient. The additional sub I don't regret at all but if I was on a tight budget I probably wouldn't bother. The 4 height speakers I wouldn't do again. If I had a higher ceiling it might have been worth. One more thing, I tried switching the M22 bookshelf mains with the M80's (large floor-standers) that are upstairs in a stereo configuration and they were too big for the room (sounded kinda loose and bloated...not tight). The M22's are much better for that size room. My apologies for the long post.

I have 5.1 in a small room 12x10x9. When I change my Avr to stereo mode I soon go back to 5.1 for the added presence. Even for just voice, the center brings it right out front. For movies, it's a big plus when the sound track moves around. Even youtube stereo movies are enhanced. I would rate my speakers as mid range. In the 2.5k range for the 5 plus sub.

Very helpful analysis of the bigger is better creep we all experience in building a home theater.

What A quality video.. very informative.. tq

My basement recreation room/home theatre is 11x26x7 with an approximate 8x8x7 open alcove at the rear-left (when facing the television). Not exactly a small room, in terms of total volume in cubic feet, but it’s not ideal because the main room is so narrow and the ceiling is so low. I’ve never let this discourage me, though, and felt that I just had to work with what space budget that was available to me, over time. Over the past couple decades, within this space, I’ve gone from a basic 2-channel stereo system to one that allowed me to run a 7.1 configuration and, in more recent years, I’ve gone all in and taken a full-on plunge into the world of 13.1 (7.6.1) Atmos, Auro-3D & DTS-X. I ripped out the entire all-carpeted and replaced with laminate flooring and an 8x5 area rug which is placed in front of the main towers, sub and centre speaker. I removed the flexible 2x4 sound & light reflecting fibreglass ceiling tiles and replaced them with 2x2 light & sound absorbing acoustical tiles. It’s tight. My couch is positioned about 8 feet from my centre speaker and my mid-surround bookshelf speakers are placed just ahead of my couch and toed toward the centre seating position. The rears, which are also towers, are about 12 feet behind my seating position. The 6 height speakers are installed in the ceiling. The system is powered with a Denon AVR-X8500H. It’s a beast of a system and I know it’s a lot of ear-level speakers crammed into the room. Many would say this is overkill for the size and type of room but it sounds fantastic. Even with the low ceiling, the immersive effect of an Atmos or DTS-X track is astounding. I can rock it out with a cranked up a concert dvd or Blu-ray & , surprisingly, experience very little distortion. The advantage of this seemingly oversized system, in a relatively cramped space, is that I can enjoy full, rich, immersive sound at all volume levels. I’m going to add a second sub to the rear space and experiment with placement. I think that a lot could also be done in a smaller space, such as a 12x12 squarish room, but consideration would need to be given to floor ceiling and wall treatments to help mitigate undesirable reflection and reverberating sound waves when you decide to crank the volume up a couple of notches.

I've always been an avid 2-ch stereo music listener and when I made a jump to a multi-channel setup within my small 13 x 11.5 ft living room, I couldn't believe how much my noise floor had risen (background signal noise) I would imagine unwanted signal noise within the larger environment would be far more forgiving, especially considering the more square footage the signal noise has to dissipate the less likely it's going to be noticeable! I'm all about high quality and even though I'm running a high-performance 5.2.4 setup, the heightened noise floor in my experience has very little to do with quality components and more to do with cabling. Got to remember unshielded cables act as antennas for attracting RF and the longer the cable the better the antenna. One can put this to the test themselves by disconnecting the heights & surrounds and then listen how much the noise floor comes down. Considering I'm in a small room I've been very impressed by the results. In fact the last group of cables I shielded with my HDMIs and lo and behold my small room became slightly quieter yet again. I've now managed to get my room so quiet that there are occasions I'm unable to tell difference whether my system is switched off or it's actually switched on but it just happened to be on pause. It's really that quiet and like I said that's all down to cabling!

I agreed with this position until recently. I deal with recording studios and one mix room I occasionally experience is awful in stereo ($1500 of powered monitors). Move your head two inches and get a different mix. I heard it set up with $100/channel of 7.4.2 atmos and the listening position (yes only one) became 1000 times more usable. 14’x10’ x 8’ room.

3:41 the best information right there

Largely agree! Quality over quantity! . I also wouldn't recommend anything over 5.1.2 , max, in room dimension described here. Also, i default to smaller speakers for smaller spaces, small sub , etc

It can be done, but you're in TIGHT quarters. Go to the fifths measurement, and start there. I have a 13x13x8 room, and through some maneuvering, I am able to fit a 7.2.4 system. It just will be tighter than I want. Right now, I have a 5.2.2. Work wonders in Atmos. Just remember, it's tighter with a larger system.

I agree young fella, my only reservation is IF your room is mid or larger with your expecting to upgrade, then IDENTICAL is then more of a better suggestion. Matching timbre channels in a 5.1 outweighs any stronger (more expensive) L-Rs... again only IF you can expand down the road. As you point out, one definitely HAS to get stereo right 1st though. Good video.

I have small 12x13 room that I use both for music and theater. As is usually the case with these questions I'd have to say it depends. For music I sometime like stereo, sometimes 5.1, and sometimes all-channel stereo (yes, it's artificial sounding, but sometime it's fun). For video I always use the 5.1 as the surrounds do have the usual effect. FWIW, I'm using M5s, a VP100, and some really old Advent minis for the surrounds. I have a sub, but have turned it off and run the R/L as large since I went from M22s to the M5. (I certainly didn't have to go to the M5s in this room, but you all know how that goes, right?)

The bottom line here would be: experiment, try. Each listening room is different due to furniture, wall materials, wall stiffness, rugs, dimensions, even the texture of your wall can have an effect. Then come the rule of thirds or fifths for speaker placement. The height for subwoofers, etc. The room itself is a variable to be considered when adjusting sound parameters. Sound appreciation is always a subjective matter...until you experience a perfectly balanced room.

Yes ... my room is 12' X 12'. My questions when listening to Dark Side of the Moon, how can Stereo ever compare to 5.1 surround processing? it lacks dimension & the sound movement to achieve Pink Floyds original goal. =Your in the middle of the Airport not on the side as a spectator (just a Stereo Spectator)

Not being a baller, I have a 13 x 20 ft rectangle small mancave. Went with 5.1 with front towers, dual 10 inch subs and a lot of equalization and positioning it's fantastic. Both 2.1 and 5.1 sounds great. Have both a 75 inch Sony for regular viewing and a 100ft drop down screen for full on movie nights with family. My room is small but it's my space to chill away from the stresses of daily life. Love it. Thanks for your inspiration.

Andrew ... Informative as always ... My system is 2.1 in a 12 x 12 room and it sounds great because of good components ... To me, the biggest reason to stay "small" is that the overwhelming number of rooms are terrible acoustically (hard surfaces and openings). If one has not created a "great room" to listen in, as well as, a nice sweet spot within the room, extra speakers are usually wasted.

Is q990c soundbar too much for 12x12 room?

Ok two things i would like clarified: 1) whats a "smallish speaker'? ... I have a pair of PSB Alpha LR1's ... what is the Max size to fit into that category? 2) "height effects" ... does that come out of the separation issue or is that a separate issue of raising the speakers to say 10 feet high? Live theatre's have speakers both at Main floor level and up high for both balcony and main floor listening ... how does that translate into 12X12 room? Should the "smallish" speakers be wall mounted? How does "high" wall mounting change the acoustic? Acoustics are a three dimensional occurence are they not? For example ... as a musician (french horn) the acoustic changes radically in a peaked church versus a normal rectanglular hall. Curious ... P.S. I watching this as i do my daily warm up!

😉

just one soundbar with surround sound simulation

My room is 4 m by 4 m so very small. I've got a 5.2.1 so what you are saying I've wasted my money😞. If I was to downscale I wouldn't get the Dolby Atmos. So what would be the point in buying 4K movies🤷🏻‍♂️

Why do people in this industry / hobby continue to use subjective terms “small”, “medium” and “large” when describing listening or home theater rooms? Why not define rooms by square or cubic feet (or meters) or a range of those measurements instead? Most speaker manufacturers (axiom included), retailers, hobbyists will say small, medium or large rooms when marketing a product. I know the dimensions of my room, but is it a “small, medium or large” room?