Given the premise that cinema soundtracks should be balanced right across the front sound-stage, and the vast majority of film dialogue eminates directly from the centre speaker, is there a reason why so many manufacturers offer a separately designed center speaker that is usually smaller than the left & right?
High-end THX systems seem to advocate the use of 3 identical speakers across left-centre-right (as is the set-up in commercial movie theaters) so why go with a different centre speaker? My basic question is should I buy 3 speakers of the same type for the front of my theater?

yes.

OR go with a center channel that is "voice matched" to the rest of your speakers...

that way, a car driving from left to right WONT sound like:

LEFT (car) -> CENTER (motorcycle) -> RIGHT (car)

knowwhatimean?:cool:

Unless the speakers across the front are identical, they will not be timbre matched. The laws of physics get seriously in the way of any attempts to timbre match a horizontal center channel to a vertical L/R speaker. "Voice matched" is a marketing term with no real substance behind it.

The reason we have horizontal center channel speakers is for those occasions where the video display is a big piece of glass (plasma, rear projection) and a speaker with a vertical orientation simply isn't going to fit. In this case a nearly timbre matched center is superior to no center. In such cases it is generally the case the overall room acoustics are poor enough the lack of a timbre matched center is the least of the problems.

Unless the speakers across the front are identical, they will not be timbre matched. The laws of physics get seriously in the way of any attempts to timbre match a horizontal center channel to a vertical L/R speaker. "Voice matched" is a marketing term with no real substance behind it.Amen.

The reason we have horizontal center channel speakers is for those occasions where the video display is a big piece of glass (plasma, rear projection) and a speaker with a vertical orientation simply isn't going to fit. In this case a nearly timbre matched center is superior to no center. In such cases it is generally the case the overall room acoustics are poor enough the lack of a timbre matched center is the least of the problems.True but the marketing attack of those so-called dedicated center speakers has created a vast misconception that these are the proper speakers for the application, rather than a sop/accommodation to those who can do nothing else.

Given the premise that cinema soundtracks should be balanced right across the front sound-stage, and the vast majority of film dialogue eminates directly from the centre speaker, is there a reason why so many manufacturers offer a separately designed center speaker that is usually smaller than the left & right?

Because of the physics that most people do not have a perforated screen in a front-projection theater. Most people have a big TV there, or a non-perf screen. It is difficult to get a speaker in the center, you have to go either above or below, and this limits the dimensions and nature of speakers you can put there. Horizontally oriented center channels are a compromise for these situations.


High-end THX systems seem to advocate the use of 3 identical speakers across left-centre-right (as is the set-up in commercial movie theaters) so why go with a different centre speaker? My basic question is should I buy 3 speakers of the same type for the front of my theater?

Absolutely. That is absolutely ideal. If you can fit that into your system properly, it is most certainly the best thing to do.

But again, if you have big towers from L and R, and you have a TV in the middle, obviously you can't stick a big tower in front of your TV because then it's in the way of seeing the TV. That's why people compromise for the center for situations like that.

True but the marketing attack of those so-called dedicated center speakers has created a vast misconception that these are the proper speakers for the application, rather than a sop/accommodation to those who can do nothing else.

So does that mean you've got an 802D center too? ;)

Gentlemen; Thank you for your collective response which entirely confirms my suspicions. With a perforated screen and the luxury of a dedicated theatre space this seems to be the logical thing to do - 3 identical speakers across the front.
Now all that remains to decide is which 3 speakers to purchase (for approx $2k in total) and which perforated screen material to use;
Any suggestions to the above would be most welcome.
Kind regards, Julian.

Gentlemen; Thank you for your collective response which entirely confirms my suspicions. With a perforated screen and the luxury of a dedicated theatre space this seems to be the logical thing to do - 3 identical speakers across the front.
Yes...anything else is a compromise. A necessary one in many cases, but a compromise.

True but the marketing attack of those so-called dedicated center speakers has created a vast misconception that these are the proper speakers for the application, rather than a sop/accommodation to those who can do nothing else.
Funny how many believe that a "center" speaker simply has to be better there because it's, y'know, made for the purpose.

So does that mean you've got an 802D center too? ;)Yes.

Are you guys telling me that even if the center channel is from the same line of speakers, it still won't sound matched? Very interesting.

I recently replaced my floorstanders with some smaller active monitors, so it might be possible for me to squeeze another identical monitor right underneath the TV, even though it will block a large portion of my receiver's display...but the real problem is, I think it might be bad to have the tweeters more than a feet beneath ear-level...which they would be, if I were to do so.

Would you guys rather run a phantom center with two speakers at ear-level, or three at a slightly lower height?

So does that mean you've got an 802D center too? ;)Knowing Kal, that's likely what he uses for surrounds too.

Sanjay

Knowing Kal, that's likely what he uses for surrounds too.

Sanjay

I heard he uses 804S's confirm/deny

double post, oops

I have my center above my TV, and my TV above my fireplace (yeah, well, I was short of options). I have my speakers on OmniMount 30's which means I can aim them, though, and I have some very directive speakers (active near-field monitors). I use the same speaker model for all six points (F-R/C/L, R-R/C/L). Imaging and clarity is great, although the sweet spot isn't as wide as the couch. That being said, when I ran without a center for testing, imaging was just as great; center sound came from straight between the fronts.

Which is a long way of saying: Yes, you can use the same speakers all around, and it's the "ideal" situation. Differences in height can be accommodated with directive speakers and aiming.

This topic hits on a real pet peeve of mine....all these speaker systems with towers for front L,R, then a horizontal center speaker...If, like me...you only care about movies, then front 3 should be identical speakers and oriented vertically. Over the years speaker manufacturers noted that vertical orientations sound the best...a center channel is only made because of a marketing department...and a wife who likes it's look.

I have noticed that you can orient the center speaker above the display and the dialog will appear to come from the display. Orienting it below will close up your soundstage.

Years ago I had the center speaker fixed to the wall about 1/2 a foot above my tv...and the soundstage was excellent. I think that installer also inverted the speaker to get the tweeters as close as possible, so there was definitely some degree of compromise.

I currently have 5 identical B&W 601's, and I'm now thinking of adding the B&W dipoles to really make a proper THX 7.1 setup.

Ben

Having three identical speakers across the front is certainly ideal as everyone here has said. The problem is that many speaker manufacturers make it difficult to do that.

For instance, if you're looking into bookshelf speakers across the front, a lot of companies make you buy them in pairs instead of individually.

I don't understand what the big deal is. Over a decade ago, M&K had their 150thx system that was composed of indentical speakers for L, C and R, and they were all only 12" tall and all vertically orientated so that you didn't have to compromise by using a different center channel.

I don't understand what the big deal is.There is no big deal.

Yeah there is. Previous posters mentioned that in most cases, compromises need to be made. Being that M&K did this over a decade ago, why can't other speaker manufacturers accomplish the same thing?

Yeah there is. Previous posters mentioned that in most cases, compromises need to be made. Being that M&K did this over a decade ago, why can't other speaker manufacturers accomplish the same thing?12" is still WAY bigger than many people can accommodate in their center spot. Manufacturers don't need to change the way their L/R speakers are designed. That, too, would also be a compromise. If a consumer can accommodate it and wants to buy a perfectly matching 3rd speaker, today, he can do that.

We're the consumers, not the manufacturers. You're preaching to the choir.

12" is still WAY bigger than many people can accommodate in their center spot.

It is? One may have to shop around a bit for stand that would accomodate it, but it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

If a consumer can accommodate it and wants to buy a perfectly matching 3rd speaker, today, he can do that.

Actually, the consumer can't buy a matching 3rd speaker in many cases because they're forced to purchase in pairs.

Not every company is like this. Aperion and Triad are two manufacturers that allow you to purchase individually.

But if you want a third bookshelf speaker from Revel, Kef, B&W or Paradigm, for instance, you're out of luck.

So in those cases, the consumer is steered towards the horizontal center speaker.

It is? One may have to shop around a bit for stand that would accomodate it, but it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

You can't really say that about everyone, though. In some cases, you just can't fit a bookshelf without having to compromise somewhere else.

Heck, my stand can't hold a horizontal center channel without losing a shelf, let alone a bookshelf, and it would be too low anyway. Granted, the small above TV shelf for my center channel that I use now can also hold a bookshelf above the TV, but I don't really want my setup looking like the Taj Mahal. :p (It might sound better, though.)

It is? One may have to shop around a bit for stand that would accomodate it, but it shouldn't be that big of a deal.It has nothing to do with a stand. Many people cannot accommodate a 12" tall speaker in the center of their console. Hence the need for a horizontal center speaker in the first place. Unless they plan specifically for it, most people's setup cannot accommodate a matching vertical center speaker. It's just not aesthetically or practically possible.

But if you want a third bookshelf speaker from Revel, Kef, B&W or Paradigm, for instance, you're out of luck.Well, you're not entirely out of luck. You may be out some money. If I was dead-set on having a matching 3rd bookshelf and it wasn't available singly, I would buy a pair and either use the extra speaker as a rear center or more likely TRY to sell it. You'd be surprised at who else may be looking for a single, too.

Heck, go in with an A/V buddy and buy three pairs, split the costs and the speakers right down the middle.

(Yeah, yeah, then you have to find someone who wants the same three speakers, but it's an option. :) )

12" is still WAY bigger than many people can accommodate in their center spot.And it is still WAY smaller than many others desire. :)

My retailer happily split pairs of speakers (B&W) and sold each one for exactly half the price of a pair....he was a preacher of 3 identicals, and I certainly appreciated it!

He used to demo B&W center channel speakers, and then swap in the identical speaker as the center and the difference was clear and significant in a way that I was sold for good.

And it is still WAY smaller than many others desire. :)also true :D

Well, you're not entirely out of luck. You may be out some money. If I was dead-set on having a matching 3rd bookshelf and it wasn't available singly, I would buy a pair and either use the extra speaker as a rear center or more likely TRY to sell it. You'd be surprised at who else may be looking for a single, too.

Of course...it just stinks that the consumer is put into that position.

And you might be able to sell the single speaker on Audiogon....or then again maybe not. In which case you would have to eat the extra cost.

My retailer happily split pairs of speakers (B&W) and sold each one for exactly half the price of a pair....he was a preacher of 3 identicals, and I certainly appreciated it!

He used to demo B&W center channel speakers, and then swap in the identical speaker as the center and the difference was clear and significant in a way that I was sold for good.

That's a great dealer.

My retailer happily split pairs of speakers (B&W) and sold each one for exactly half the price of a pair....he was a preacher of 3 identicals, and I certainly appreciated it!

He used to demo B&W center channel speakers, and then swap in the identical speaker as the center and the difference was clear and significant in a way that I was sold for good.Sounds like a nice retailer. This is an example of the sort of benefit and service you CAN get from a smaller specialty shop.

I have two systems with the same LARGE/LFE mains. One system has an identical 3rd center speaker, the other a Polk R15 bookshelf speaker which matches the surrounds and single back speaker; I don't notice any center channel mismatch in either case. However, the latter system is in a smaller room, and I suspect that the Polk R15 does not have to handle the power loads imposed on the other, matching center channel speaker.

One significant problem with a matching full range center speaker: playing two channel source material through a 'pro logic' style processor can result in steering all the bass from the L+R channels to the center channel, perhaps 'doubling' the required power handling requirements for the center speaker. To avoid this, I set the matching (Large/LFEcapable) center speaker to SMALL. [This should NOT be a problem if you only play discrete channel material].

It was...they've essentially been run out of business now by the big box chains.

They were audio only, and had a trade up policy...they were the best! Dewar Audio in Ottawa.

The other thing to consider, is that a $500 pair of speakers will usually have a center speaker which is in and around $350 - $400, so why not just buy another pair and try to sell the extra one?

I dare anyone to go into Magnolia and see if they'll sell three MartinLogans or something.

Bonus points if you videotape the reaction and post it on Youtube. :p

The other thing to consider, is that a $500 pair of speakers will usually have a center speaker which is in and around $350 - $400, so why not just buy another pair and try to sell the extra one?Yeah. good point. Sometimes 2 more speakers are only a little more than the center offering.

I dare anyone to go into Magnolia and see if they'll sell three MartinLogans or something.

Bonus points if you videotape the reaction and post it on Youtube. :pLOL. The thing to do is hang out (may take days) until a customer buys a ML setup and convince him that a 3rd matching center is the way to go. Split the pair with him.

Although a 3rd matching ML would be best, I don't think the ML center suffers from many of the issues associated with most conventional horizontal speakers, though.

Hell, I went into Magnolia here recently and asked about a "universal player" and they looked at me like I had just asked them about Unified Field Theory.

The other thing to consider, is that a $500 pair of speakers will usually have a center speaker which is in and around $350 - $400, so why not just buy another pair and try to sell the extra one?

Or you could just keep the 4th speaker as a spare...

In the late 1980's [when I was crazier, had bad luck with subs, and mistrusted bass redirection,] I ran two surround systems in adjacent rooms from a single processor -- with room-dedicated amps [simultaneous system balances required some volume levels to be set on the 4x 2-channel and 2x 4-channel power amps...] So I bought four identical pairs of main speakers, and ran them in L+C1, C2+R pairs on the 4x 2-channel main power amps.

In recent years, I have never had more than three pairs of these speakers in use simultaneously -- leaving me with 2 spare speakers (technically, one 'left', and one 'right'.) The other advantage: when considering any new system configuration, I am never in doubt as to what I will be using for the main speaker pair!

Anyone serious about theater sound would not be running full range speakers, no?

Crossovers and subs are in place for a reason...

Anyone serious about theater sound would not be running full range speakers, no?Why not?


Crossovers and subs are in place for a reason...The sub is for LFE. Bass management is for people who can't use truly full-range speakers. The Dolby spec for DD5.1 soundtracks is for 5 full range speakers and a dedicated LFE-only sub.

THX spec forces all speakers to be crossed over at 80Hz...so why would a moviephile have towers for L,R and then a smaller and different center speaker? Doesn't make any sense at all...especially when the sub will provide smooth bass for everyone and smaller speakers are easier to place in a room etc...

From THX:


Lower crossovers require larger screen speakers that load the room's bass modes at inflexible locations to the left and right of the screen. This makes it more difficult to get smooth bass in all the seats in the theater.
Larger speakers are sometimes more difficult to place properly in relation to the picture, particularly the center speaker, which is the most important speaker in movie sound.

=====================================================

I think identical speakers are an absolute must for a true moviephile...a must! Why compromise on the most important speaker in your theater (center)? And why have big towers which are mismatched from your center??

It's absolutely amazing how much marketing will impact our decisions...what about facts?

THX spec forces all speakers to be crossed over at 80Hz...so why would a moviephile have towers for L,R and then a smaller and different center speaker? Doesn't make any sense at all...especially when the sub will provide smooth bass for everyone and smaller speakers are easier to place in a room etc...

From THX:


Lower crossovers require larger screen speakers that load the room's bass modes at inflexible locations to the left and right of the screen. This makes it more difficult to get smooth bass in all the seats in the theater.
Larger speakers are sometimes more difficult to place properly in relation to the picture, particularly the center speaker, which is the most important speaker in movie sound.

=====================================================

I think identical speakers are an absolute must for a true moviephile...a must! Why compromise on the most important speaker in your theater (center)? And why have big towers which are mismatched from your center??

It's absolutely amazing how much marketing will impact our decisions...what about facts?Even at 80Hz crossover, the speaker needs do have a useful power response at least an octave below (40Hz) and tiny speakers, even with the sub, cannot do it. I see no reason NOT to have large speakers (if you can accommodate them) while using bass management.

THX spec forces all speakers to be crossed over at 80Hz...so why would a moviephile have towers for L,R and then a smaller and different center speaker? Doesn't make any sense at all...especially when the sub will provide smooth bass for everyone and smaller speakers are easier to place in a room etc...

From THX:


Lower crossovers require larger screen speakers that load the room's bass modes at inflexible locations to the left and right of the screen. This makes it more difficult to get smooth bass in all the seats in the theater.
Larger speakers are sometimes more difficult to place properly in relation to the picture, particularly the center speaker, which is the most important speaker in movie sound.

=====================================================

I think identical speakers are an absolute must for a true moviephile...a must! Why compromise on the most important speaker in your theater (center)? And why have big towers which are mismatched from your center??

It's absolutely amazing how much marketing will impact our decisions...what about facts?Who cares about THX? ;) Do you have true THX speakers and a true THX processor. With the proper 12dB/octave 2nd order slope provided by the speaker's roll-off @ 80Hz and the 12dB/octave 2nd order slope imposed by the processor, the speakers should be down 24dB @ 40Hz with a 4th order high-pass. Likewise a 4th order low-pass is applied to the subwoofer and a steep-sloped 4th order crossover is obtained. If you simply set a processor to "THX" without the proper speakers, the speakers will not be down 24dB @ 40Hz. If you are not using THX spec'd equipment, THX specs go right out the window. And even with all THX equipment, it is still difficult to comply with all the THX specs unless you specifically build a true home theater room with that as your goal.

I don't know anyone who wouldn't prefer to have 5 full-range speakers and a dedicated LFE-only subwoofer if they could accommodate them properly in their listening environment. Obviously, this would not be up to THX specs, but as I said, "who cares?". Many people have 3 larger matching speakers for their front array, whether they run them as LARGE or SMALL. But very often it is just not practical to have such large speakers as their surround speakers. But 3 larger speakers behind an acoustically transparent screen is pretty common for those of use fortunate enough to have a dedicated HT (that ain't me).

I agree with you that if you ARE going to use smaller speakers and bass management, that all matching identical speakers is ideal when it can be accommodated. I don't have matching speakers, but like most people, I DO run all my speakers as SMALL. If I were purchasing 5 speakers today, I would buy all matching SMALL speakers.

"Bass management is a band-aid". :D

"Bass management is a band-aid". :DYes but, for some of us, it is a band-aid for the room acoustics, not for inadequate loudspeakers.

Yes but, for some of us, it is a band-aid for the room acoustics, not for inadequate loudspeakers.
Shhhh.............. ;)

I put it in quotes with a big smiley. :D

Shhhh.............. ;)

I put it in quotes with a big smiley. :DI know but I wanted to make my own point. ;)

I dare anyone to go into Magnolia and see if they'll sell three MartinLogans or something.

Bonus points if you videotape the reaction and post it on Youtube. :p


Actually, the new Source and Purity models are available singly from Amazon, so you could order three. :D
But you're right, most dealers won't split a pair of MartinLogans.

This topic brings up the challenge that not only does the center need to match, often times, it needs to be pretty capable all-around as both movies and multi-channel music really put a strain on the center.

I had a MartinLogan center (Logos) and was never satisfied with its ability to keep up with the larger L/R (Monolith IIIx). My solution was to design and build (http://www.martinloganowners.com/~tdacquis/forum/showthread.php?t=2018)a center that could keep up (and in some areas, outperform) the Monoliths.

This worked out great, but does indeed require an acoustically transparent screen and a fir bit of room.

On multichannel music, like the excellent Porcupine tree DVD-Audio's, the mid-bass and midrange power is all there, even when panned to center.
the soundstage is seamless across the front.

So yes, get identical speakers if you can, or next-best, get the best center you can afford to match the other speakers.

People way underestimate the importance of a great center speaker.

Here is picture of my little center (http://www.jonathanfoulkes.com/Home_Theater/Speakers/MLSL3XC.htm) (top of speaker is 74") bolted to the Infinite Baffle sub (http://www.jonathanfoulkes.com/Home_Theater/Speakers/IBSub.htm).

http://www.jonathanfoulkes.com/images/Final3QtrView_sml.JPG

I don't see bass management as a band aid...I see it as a way to get the best possible sound out of a HT and an absolute necessity.

As for the THX specs, I am going to try to get myself a THX Select2 receiver and start building a speaker array from THX speakers....I never listen to music, and yet I love home theater. As I progress, I will comment as to the relative benefits of anything THX.

At the very least, I do appreciate THX for it's attempt to have home theater and its equipment be the best it can be...even if all of the equipment that meets the standard isn't the best.

I went with THX speakers, THX amplifiers and a THX pre-pro.

Is THX spec'd gear better than other gear that is not THX spec'd. Absolutely not. But for me, being that my primary use of this gear was for home theater, I wanted to take most of the guesswork out of my gear selection and I knew that if they were THX spec'd, than they would, at least, meet the minimum requirements of a fairly decent HT system.

...................and an absolute necessity.Not if you have 5 truly full range speakers. :D

I still disagree...but anyhow...

Even at 80Hz crossover, the speaker needs do have a useful power response at least an octave below (40Hz) and tiny speakers, even with the sub, cannot do it.

Yamaha AST-S1 (aka Yamaha YST-S1): 7-3/8" x 11-11/16" x 9-1/16", 28 Hz - 20 kHz. Not tiny, but only bookshelf sized... [and the bass performance does require the amp to output a custom equalized signal to the speakers.]

I still disagree...but anyhow...You disagree about the use of truly full-range speakers...................

For HT...yes, I do.

although it depends on what you mean....I have B&W 601's right now...they're considered "full range".

I believe all speakers should be crossed over as per THX.

let me clarify a bit...I believe in certain fundamentals.

Namely, tower speakers and a smaller center speaker...I don't believe in this at all.

Now, if you had a catheral sized room, perhaps full range speakers that aren't crossed over would work well...maybe, I don't know.

In most home theaters, I believe in front 3 speakers being identical. I also believe in crossing over the speakers and the use of a sub, or subs for the best possible sound.

Crossing over the speakers also enables the receiver to be more dynamic as it doesn't have to put out the power for the more stressful area of audio reproduction.

I'm really not interested in debating this further..if you believe in tower speakers with a different center speaker, I can't really argue...because that's what you believe.

Ben

although it depends on what you mean....I have B&W 601's right now...they're considered "full range".601s are not full-range speakers. I'm talking about speakers that comfortably and easily reach down to, at the very least, 30Hz.


I believe all speakers should be crossed over as per THX.As I said, the THX spec requires that the speakers have a 2nd order 12dB/octave roll-off at 80Hz and that the corresponding AVR apply a 2nd order 12dB/octave low-pass to the subwoofer output, resulting in a combined and steep 24dB/octave 4th order Linkwitz-Riley crossover. Even if you set an AVR to THX mode, if the speakers do not provide the appropriate roll-off at 80Hz (and the 601s do not), then this strict THX crossover specification will not be obtained. Simply setting a receiver to an 80Hz crossover does not at all achieve what THX intends.

HERE (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_2/feature-article-slope-troubles-6-2005.html) is an interesting article.

Yamaha AST-S1 (aka Yamaha YST-S1): 7-3/8" x 11-11/16" x 9-1/16", 28 Hz - 20 kHz. Not tiny, but only bookshelf sized... [and the bass performance does require the amp to output a custom equalized signal to the speakers.]I do not see a power response curve.

let me clarify a bit...I know ALL the benefits (as well as caveats) of using a SMALL speaker setting.

You "believe in"? This isn't religion. ;) :)


..if you believe in tower speakers with a different center speaker, I can't really argue...because that's what you believe.Where did you get the idea that that is what I "believe in"? If you read my responses here you will see that that is not what I "believe in". My discussion with you here has centered :o around using 5 identical full-range speakers (and an LFE sub, too). I am an almost evangelical proponent of identical speakers, LARGE or SMALL, not just as the front array, but in all 5 spots WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE to accommodate such in thine home. I believe that the usual horizontal center channel speaker that is offered up as a matching center by most manufacturers is blasphemous, indeed. I don't practice what I preach for a number of reasons; a main one being that I had not seen the light and was not a convert at the time I purchased my speaker-set. But even if I had been a convert at the time, I may have still been tempted to sin and purchase what I did, anyway, knowing full well the punishment that awaiteth me.


"To believe is not to know", BTW. ;)

This topic hits on a real pet peeve of mine....all these speaker systems with towers for front L,R, then a horizontal center speaker...If, like me...you only care about movies, then front 3 should be identical speakers and oriented vertically. Over the years speaker manufacturers noted that vertical orientations sound the best...a center channel is only made because of a marketing department...and a wife who likes it's look.

I have noticed that you can orient the center speaker above the display and the dialog will appear to come from the display. Orienting it below will close up your soundstage.

Years ago I had the center speaker fixed to the wall about 1/2 a foot above my tv...and the soundstage was excellent. I think that installer also inverted the speaker to get the tweeters as close as possible, so there was definitely some degree of compromise.

I currently have 5 identical B&W 601's, and I'm now thinking of adding the B&W dipoles to really make a proper THX 7.1 setup.

Ben



I bought speakers that can be used in either a verical or horizontal manner.


http://nhthifi.com/current/products/vintage/m5.html


No need to lock yourself into any so called "proper" setup.


B & W 601 speakers are ported speakers. THX requires sealed speakers as far as I remember.

No need to lock yourself into any so called "proper" setup.You're "holding your mouth wrong", anyway. :p


B & W 601 speakers are ported speakers. THX requires sealed speakers as far as I remember.Yep.

I do not see a power response curve.

The Yamaha AST-S1 (aka YST-S1) speakers are really just “Advanced Yamaha Active Servo Technology (Advanced YST)” < http://www.yamaha.ca/av/technology/Advanced_YST.jsp > powered subs with conventional woofers and tweeters added to create full range speakers – and with the custom equalized 2-channel amp housed in a separate chassis. The ‘wide’ setting on the complementary AST-A10 (aka YST-A10) amp has a nominal output curve flat down to 20 Hz [with a 2-1/2 dB drop off at 10 Hz], and the equalization profile plugged into the amp is supposed to ensure the speaker response is similarly flat, by compensating for any mechanical reproduction property shortfalls in the speakers. [This apparently worked well enough for Yamaha to use the same technology in their subs for the next 20 years.]

I’ve never seen any serious performance measurements done on the AST-S1, so it’s tough to judge how well the technology performs in a speaker context [vs. subwoofer.] Subjectively, I’d have to say the bass response curve is independent of volume level – at least, at all levels I’ve ever played, even accidentally high [the 100W+100W AST-A10 amp only ever runs barely warm to the touch]. Pipe-organ music and rocket engine exhausts sound agreeably close to the real thing, although the physiological effects of 20 Hz and down are clearly missing!

[Sorry, best info I can provide; Yamaha docs on this system were limited to the user manuals...]

Indeed, the B&W's are on their way out...as I mentioned I'm going to reconstruct the home theater piece by piece. I also found the B&W's a bit bright when teamed with a Rotel receiver. I think perhaps the B&W's accentuate the high end, which I really don't like anyhow.

Good discussion...I'm glad we can keep it at this level and not let it get ridiculous.

And yes, I said I believe in X because indeed I am not 100% certain. But in the tests that I've been through, I do believe in 3 identicals. THe only reason I don't say 5 is because dipoles in the rear are probably better for an immersive soundfield.

I think the speakers I get should have very good horizontal dispersion and be true to the source...I will also be sure that they have THX certification or at least the proper crossover as mentioned earlier and not break the bank....any suggestions?

Ben

The Yamaha AST-S1 (aka YST-S1) speakers are really just “Advanced Yamaha Active Servo Technology (Advanced YST)” < http://www.yamaha.ca/av/technology/Advanced_YST.jsp > powered subs with conventional woofers and tweeters added to create full range speakers – and with the custom equalized 2-channel amp housed in a separate chassis. The ‘wide’ setting on the complementary AST-A10 (aka YST-A10) amp has a nominal output curve flat down to 20 Hz [with a 2-1/2 dB drop off at 10 Hz], and the equalization profile plugged into the amp is supposed to ensure the speaker response is similarly flat, by compensating for any mechanical reproduction property shortfalls in the speakers. [This apparently worked well enough for Yamaha to use the same technology in their subs for the next 20 years.]

I’ve never seen any serious performance measurements done on the AST-S1, so it’s tough to judge how well the technology performs in a speaker context [vs. subwoofer.] Subjectively, I’d have to say the bass response curve is independent of volume level – at least, at all levels I’ve ever played, even accidentally high [the 100W+100W AST-A10 amp only ever runs barely warm to the touch]. Pipe-organ music and rocket engine exhausts sound agreeably close to the real thing, although the physiological effects of 20 Hz and down are clearly missing!

[Sorry, best info I can provide; Yamaha docs on this system were limited to the user manuals...]Well, I do not want to dismiss this for lack of information but there's too little technical information to judge. Nonetheless, I would certainly be surprised if this little box had good power output to 20Hz, let alone 2.5dB @ 10Hz. The few specs do represent it as pretty flat at 85dB down to 40-50Hz but quote the maximum output of 112dB @ 1KHz. So, who knows?

THe only reason I don't say 5 is because dipoles in the rear are probably better for an immersive soundfield.I thought you were saved until you said that. :(


....any suggestions?Yeah. Don't limit yourself to THX-certified speakers. Not only will you have few choices, but you are missing out on all the many better speakers that are available out there. A THX HT setup, IMO, is not just overrated, but almost a thing of the past.

I take it that you're an advocate of direct radiating surrounds? Why is that?

Why does THX recommend dipoles?

Give me a suggestion of satellite speakers that you think would be good for HT...I'm curious. Would you suggest I keep the B&W's?

Ben

I take it that you're an advocate of direct radiating surrounds? Why is that?Well, many people just do not like the idea of surround-specific speakers. Others think they make perfect sense. This can be a controversial subject.

Those of us who prefer direct radiating speakers for our surrounds think that a speaker designed specifically to reproduce a diffuse sound field is counterintuitive. Soundtracks are mixed in the studio to be reproduced by direct radiating speakers. Any ambiance or diffuse sound effects should be and will be properly mixed into the soundtrack by the engineer.

Surround-specific speakers are a remnant left over from the days of Pro-Logic receivers (or earlier, even) when the surround channels in a surround soundtrack were not really discrete channels and adding surround ambiance was really about the only thing the surround speakers could be used for. Nowadays, the surround channels of modern soundtracks are mixed discretely and very distinct and separate sounds are often present in the surround channels. Surround tracks have become more and more discrete over the years, as engineers have become more and more adept at using them. With the advent of the newer 7.1 (and even higher) discrete (and lossless) formats, direct radiating surrounds will only become more essential. Again, ambiance can be mixed into these discrete channels appropriately by the engineer so as to produce diffuse sounds if need be.

If you plan to use your surround speakers for any of the discrete surround music formats such as SACD and DVD-A, direct radiating speakers are much preferred, if not required. It is likely that there will be more hirez music available with the newer lossless codecs such as TrueHD.

Properly calibrated, direct radiating surround speakers should not be localizable.

Surround specific speakers are often more limited placement-wise.

Surround-specific speakers are very limited in their utility. They can only be used for one thing; as surround speakers. A standard pair of bookshelf speakers can be used further down the road as a stereo pair or as the front speakers in another HT setup. You can give them or sell them to your kid brother or a friend much more easily for use as stereo or front speakers than a p[air of surround-specific speakers.


Why does THX recommend dipoles?Misguidance? The THX specs are old, now. I think that that recommendation harkens back, as I discussed above, to the time when surround channels were not discrete and they were used more for ambiance than anything else.


Give me a suggestion of satellite speakers that you think would be good for HT...I'm curious. Would you suggest I keep the B&W's?Do you like your B&Ws or not? I assume you have 3 of them. If you like them, you could try and get 2 more for a completely matching and seamless sound stage. They may be hard to find now. If you replace them, I would still try and get 5 matching speakers. You seem to understand the benefits of 3 matching speakers up front. I'm not sure why your logic doesn't extend on around to the the surround speakers as well.

Well...I have 3 601s3's up front and a pair of 601's in the rear....I think I might find the speakers a little bright, personally. I think they probably color the sound, and I want proper sound. I'm also thinking I like the recommended dispersion of a THX speaker, with wide horizontal dispersion and little vertical dispersion...it makes a lot of sense to me.

I think the B&W is a good speaker, but I'm not sure I've matched it with an appropriate receiver (Rotel 1055). I think the combo may be a tad bright...

THX is up to date and still recommend dipoles for surround in a 7.1 setup at least. With 2 rear surrounds being direct radiating speakers. In a theater, there is an array of side speakers, and I think dipoles are the best option for recreating this array. Although, I suppose that a smaller room would not benefit as much...it's a tough one, I'd like to hear some examples. And I would never listen to music, so that factor wouldn't sway me.

Ben

I appreciate what you're saying about direct radiating surrounds, but it doesn't make sense that THX wouldn't update their specs on surrounds if they believed they were incorrect or outdated.

I appreciate what you're saying about direct radiating surrounds, but it doesn't make sense that THX wouldn't update their specs on surrounds if they believed they were incorrect or outdated.Old habits die hard. Have their specs EVER changed? What ARE their specs, anyway? No one knows. And this is no accident. It is by design. Manufacturers pay to learn what the specs are, then manufacture products that meet the specs, then pay to have their equipment certified. Then people are enticed to literally buy into something that is purposefully cloaked in secrecy in order to maintain a false sense of exclusivity.

For example, people think THX speakers are better just because they are "THX certified". This is nonsense. They can quote stuff about slopes and horizontal and vertical dispersion, etc.. and say it all makes perfect sense. Of course it does.

This is the only thing you can find on the THX site describing the speaker attributes they strive for:
Home THX LCR front channel speakers improve dialogue intelligibility and imaging in two ways. First, they provide wide horizontal dispersion. This allows for people sitting off-axis to hear full and flat frequency response. The second technique is to control the speakers' vertical dispersion. Acousticians have found that the ceiling and floor reflections deteriorate a speaker's ability to image. In addition, the coloration from these vertical reflections cloud intelligibility.Well, duh. Of course you want your speakers to have good horizontal dispersion. This is something that has been a major goal of speaker design forever; way before HT. Any decently designed speaker is going to have good horizontal dispersion. Want to decrease the ill-effects of vertical dispersion? Treat your room. Why specifically restrict the speakers themselves? Dialogue intelligibility? Is this not the goal of everyone with a HT? Just because a speaker is THX certified to provide good dialogue intelligibility (whatever the hell that would entail) doesn't mean it necessarily WILL in your HT environment. This can be achieved by the end-user in any number of ways besides buying "special speakers". Perhaps you can set your theater up and exceed "THX specs". You don't know and will never know because you don't know their specs.

What I don't understand is the obsession people have with THX specs for a HT setup in the first place. The same or better can be achieved without any of the artificial constraints imposed by the elusive and mysterious THX specs. Do you know what sounds good to you or not? Are you going to let someone else tell you what sounds "correct"? I'll try and stop short of calling it clever marketing.

Can someone link me to detailed THX speaker specifications? No, they can't.

HERE (http://www.costore.com/THX/productenlarged.asp?peid=87&pid=929089) is a black hoodie for the THX fans. Or how about a keychain (http://www.costore.com/THX/productenlarged.asp?peid=87&pid=930463).

Personally, I could care less about THX specs. I don't think they have any real-world value for me.

But I thought this thread was interesting so I googled THX and was lead to this site--

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/side.html

--where they appear to be recommending a dipolar or bipolar speaker. They don't really specify which from what I can gather. But the illustration implies that it's not a direct radiating speaker.

For what it's worth, Revel has discontinued making surround specific speakers (dipolar/bipolar) for it's new Ultima line. And I think that is going to apply to the Performa and Concerta lines in the future as well. (I seem to remember Kevin Voecks recently saying something about surround specific speakers being obsolete.)

Not that Revel's approach is gospel, just an indication of where the industry might be heading.

I think the THX speaker specs are basically a flat response, sealed enclosure and a specific crossover network....and I agree, that would not necessarily mean you're dealing with a good speaker. But it puts you in the ballpark.

I hate marketing...but I love something being the best it can be. For that reason, I am very interested in THX and what they have to say with regard to HT.

I believe I am a new breed...a theaterphile. THat is to say, I'm not an audiophile. I'm a videophile and a theaterphile. I could absolutely care less about music, my only focus is HT...

Here is a good read on THX certification........

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/technical-topics/thx-certification.html

I think the THX speaker specs are basically a flat response, sealed enclosure and a specific crossover network....and I agree, that would not necessarily mean you're dealing with a good speaker. But it puts you in the ballpark.I do not disagree that the THX specs probably provide for a good audio experience. But so what? That is not really saying anything.


I hate marketing...but I love something being the best it can be. For that reason, I am very interested in THX and what they have to say with regard to HT.Well, there is no reason to "hate marketing". But you should be able to recognize it.

Why do you think THX certification will (or even may) necessarily make it "the best it can be"? Seriously. Why? You don't even know the specs.


I believe I am a new breed...a theaterphile.Not a new breed. ;)

The last sentence in the link that I posted above, I think, sums it up pretty well.......

"Buying non-THX, most importantly, means that you have far less of an idea about what you're getting without some homework."

The last sentence in the link that I posted above, I think, sums it up pretty well.......

"Buying non-THX, most importantly, means that you have far less of an idea about what you're getting without some homework."Yes, it does sum it up pretty well. :)

Since you don't know the specs, does buying THX mean you have more of an idea of what you are getting? :confused: Or does it mean that someone else knows what you are getting?

The whole paragraph is even more telling:
THX guarantees a lot of very useful features, and if you get a THX system, then simply plug everything in and press Play, you're going to get results that are pretty close to acceptable. If you actually then further calibrate and position speakers properly, it'll almost certainly be excellent. Buying non-THX, most importantly, means that you have far less of an idea about what you're getting without some homework."Pretty close to acceptable". Now THAT is something to strive for. :D


Trust me, I understand the original and intended goal of standardization and consumer protection that THX certification was intended to provide. And I have defended THX certification on these grounds. When people argue that it is used as a veiled and even deceptive marketing scheme, I say "so what?". What's wrong with marketing?

What I dislike is that people simply accept that THX certification makes something necessarily "better". There is no basis at all for this sort of thinking.

True, but THX DOES provide a performance base line if it is mated to associated THX spec'd gear, no?

For those that don't want to do a lot of homework in putting together a decent HT system, THX makes a lot of sense.

But I DO totally agree that just because something is THX certified does not mean that it is inherently better than a non-THX'd product. It may be, but then again..........it may not be. ;)

For those that don't want to do a lot of homework in putting together a decent HT system, THX makes a lot of sense.Define "decent". Sure, if you trust them (which may be reasonable), buying THX equipment sure does take the guesswork out of things. :rolleyes: Even if you limit yourself to only THX equipment, you're going to need to do some homework.

But the idea that you can just throw THX equipment into a room and it will sound "decent" is absurd. What is "decent"? Decent equipment? Or decent sound? Why not set your own bar of what sounds decent instead of relying on someone else to not only set the bar, but set it somewhere you don't even know it is.

Benareeno (sorry to pick on you, ben) claims to be a "theaterphile". Would this be the sort of person who doesn't want to "do a lot of homework"? :confused:

I think the crossover design of the speakers meshed with that of the processor would put me in a good ballpark to begin with.

And I won't argue that it's not necessarily better...that's certainly true. But as I said, it puts me in a ballpark that interests me. Matched crossovers for sub/sat etc. I want to do this right, and I trust that THX puts me in a good ballpark. Certainly not better than anything else out there....

I think the crossover design of the speakers meshed with that of the processor would put me in a good ballpark to begin with.Why? What do you mean, exactly?

A flat response through the crossover region is something that people go to great lengths to achieve and THX certified equipment does not at all necessarily guarantee even a good starting point to achieve this. Just throwing THX speakers into a room with a THX sub and a THX processor is not going to give you any greater chance of a flatter response than doing the same with non-THX equipment.

Why does THX recommend dipoles?THX recommends dipoles in order to mimic the dubbing stages that movies are mixed in, where long arrays of surround speakers provide very general left vs back vs right directionality. Listeners sit in the null (quiet zone) of the dipoles, so they hear very little direct sound from the surround speakers and are instead enveloped by reflected energy in the surround field. This is the exact opposite of what direct firing monopoles deliver, with their precise localization and stereophonic imaging between surround speakers.

There's more than one approach to home theatre. Some people want to recreate the theatrical experience (sound, picture, even decor) as closely as possible. This is where THX (as an entire system) is helpful, since their goal is to recreate the environment where movie soundtracks were created. Others don't feel that their home theatres should be limited to the sound they've experienced in commercial theatres. Both are valid approaches, depending on personal philosophy.

Sanjay

it's also that I can't go out and audition tons of speakers...and reviews are all the same...which is to say that they're positive. Otherwise they don't do a review at all.

I am looking at something like M&K 750 for front 3 speakers...and some form of matching surrounds, either dipole or direct (I'm not sure yet).

I think the sub or subs will be of utmost importance....and I'll take my time.

Ben

Yes, Ben. It DOES put you in the ballpark. And that should be comforting because there are many that are still out in the parking lot, but most here are striving to get seats right behind home plate, and THAT can be accomplished with both THX gear and non-THX gear.

I mean the crossover of a THX processor will be a good match for that of THX speakers and subs...if not a perfect match. THX speakers must adhere to a specific crossover, and the processor is also using this crossover, so you will be getting a good match for good performance from your gear.

I'm looking for behind home plate as well....if you don't have a matching vertical center speaker, then you'll not ever be able to get there...as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, Ben. It DOES put you in the ballpark.And how is that? In the ballpark of what? Define what that means. How does it put you any more in the ballpark than non-THX equipment? If you think THX equipment magically makes it "in the ballpark", you're wrong. T-ball or major leagues? :)

....if you don't have a matching vertical center speaker, then you'll not ever be able to get there...as far as I'm concerned.Exactly. And you didn't have to have THX tell you that, did you?

Nor does 3 matching speakers across the front automatically, by itself, make a system "sound good", either. It could still sound like a$$.

I mean the crossover of a THX processor will be a good match for that of THX speakers and subs...if not a perfect match. THX speakers must adhere to a specific crossover, and the processor is also using this crossover, so you will be getting a good match for good performance from your gear.I'm not going to let you off that easy. Explain what you mean. As I said, people go to great lengths to not only make their room's response flat through the crossover region, but flat, period. They don't think they have to start with THX equipment to achieve that (because you don't). Does it help? Maybe. Maybe not. Are you going to measure your room's response or not? If not, is that you "think" it helps a good assumption or blind faith? (<<< rhetorical question; there is no correct answer).

haphazardly using any receiver and it's crossover may or may not put you in a good ballpark in terms of how it crosses over your mains and low passes your sub. You may lack or have excessive bass because of a crossover that is not ideal. I'm keen on at least seeing how a THX processor will work with THX spec'd sats and sub. I want to see if it helps make the sub seemless or not. If it doesn't...I'll keep trying other things until it does. I am definitely not someone who thinks this stuff is an investment, I don't mind selling things off and trying again....I've probably owned 20 projectors in 4 years:)

And I totally agree that THX doesn't mean something is better...I mean hell, Kenwood has a lot of THX stuff, and Kenwood is crap.

THX did start the directive of 3 identical speakers up front...so you have to tip your hat to them at least somewhat...no?

I think the sub or subs will be of utmost importance....and I'll take my time.Could you post links to THX certified subs? Just curious. Take your time.

And how is that? In the ballpark of what? Define what that means. How does it put you any more in the ballpark than non-THX equipment? If you think THX equipment magically makes it "in the ballpark", you're wrong. T-ball or major leagues? :)

Let me try to clarify. I do believe that if one gets THX certified gear (speakers, sub, amp and pre-pro/avr), he/she stands a better chance of getting a half-way decent HT system than a novice who hasn't invested the time necessary to put together a decent non-THX spec'd system.

Could you post links to THX certified subs? Just curious. Take your time.

Google THX subs and you'll come up with some.

I'd like to pose a specific question about this issue. It intuitively makes sense to me that matching 3 identical speakers across the front would provide the most cohesive soundstage. In a year or two when I finish grad school I'll probably make a signficant upgrade from my Polks.

One line that strikes my fancy are the Revel Performas (probably used). I like the idea of 5 M22 bookshelf speakers all around, but would an M22 acting as a center provide the same clarity and dynamics that the C52 center would? The M22 consists of a single woofer and tweeter, whereas the C52 is a pair of woofers flanking a vertically aligned tweeter and midrange. As far as horizontal designs go, I understand this to be ideal. The C52 costs 2.5X as much as a single M22 and has additional drivers. To me it seems that the C52 is probably the better speaker, though I could be wrong. Maybe using the C52 would be a compromise in "cohesiveness," but would I lose anything by going with the seemingly less good M22? Revel also offers the C32, which is supposedly the better match for the M22s and is similar in design to the C52, but using a different tweeter and smaller woofers. For the sake of argument, let's assume the C32/52 are interchangeable.

Sure....here you go:

http://www.thx.com/products/home/speakers.html

THX did start the directive of 3 identical speakers up front...so you have to tip your hat to them at least somewhat...no?No. And rmccully has addressed this:It intuitively makes sense to me that matching 3 identical speakers across the front would provide the most cohesive soundstage.

...................but would an M22 acting as a center provide the same clarity and dynamics that the C52 center would? The M22 consists of a single woofer and tweeter, whereas the C52 is a pair of woofers flanking a vertically aligned tweeter and midrange. As far as horizontal designs go, I understand this to be ideal. The C52 costs 2.5X as much as a single M22 and has additional drivers. To me it seems that the C52 is probably the better speaker, though I could be wrong. Maybe using the C52 would be a compromise in "cohesiveness," but would I lose anything by going with the seemingly less good M22? Revel also offers the C32, which is supposedly the better match for the M22s and is similar in design to the C52, but using a different tweeter and smaller woofers. For the sake of argument, let's assume the C32/52 are interchangeable.Yes, the WMTW design does address some of the pitfalls of horizontal center channel speakers. But I would be concerned about timbre matching if I was mixing a 3-way center speaker with 2-way bookshelf speakers.

And yes, the center channel speaker is important, but does it really require a different speaker (that may or may not really be better suited)? My opinion is that if a speaker performs well in your room for the L/R front channels in a stereo or HT setup, then it should be just good as a center channel speaker.

...would an M22 acting as a center provide the same clarity and dynamics that the C52 center would?Don't know how the clarity and dynamics would compare, but the M22 centre would likely be a better match for M22 L/R speakers.

Imagine you were doing a 2-speaker set-up, and someone offered you two choices: one M22 and one F32 or a pair of M22s. Would you choose the M22/F32 combo, since it includes a better speaker. Of course not. You'd end up with an inconsistent soundstage from left to right.

There's no reason to change that way of thinking just because your soundstage is now made up of three speakers. The F32 *may* sound clearer and more dynamic than the M22, but that very difference will cause it to sound inconsistent with the rest of the soundstage that the M22s are throwing.

I don't want sounds to change as they move across the front soundstage. One of the attributes I look for in a centre speaker is its ability to blend with the L/R speakers. What will do that better than another copy of the L/R speakers?

Sanjay

My opinion is that if a speaker performs well in your room for the L/R front channels in a stereo or HT setup, then it should be just good as a center channel speaker.

That sounds like a reasonable assumption.

To stray off topic a bit, do you think a mid- to hi-end bookshelf like the Revel M22 has the dynamics, when crossed to a sub, for near-reference level playback in a 3000 cubic foot room? I'd love three floorstanders across the front, but as many pointed out, this is often impractical.

If center speaker arrangements were any better at all...then they'd make them the same as a normal speaker. They're not the same, they're a huge compromise and it's to the point where people feel good about seeing a horizontal center speaker....it's just wrong.

There is absolutely no way that a center speaker would ever be more appropriate than one of whatever your mains are...

Also, there's is no way that a center would produce dialog or any other sounds any better than your mains....but that's definitely what marketing wants you to believe.

If center speaker arrangements were any better at all...then they'd make them the same as a normal speaker. They're not the same......

Mine are the same. The only difference between my center and my mains is that the center has an angled baffle to make locating either above or below the TV a bit easier to do. Now if this particular manufacturer had their business practices just as together as their engineering expertise, they'd still be in business.........:(

There is absolutely no way that a center speaker would ever be more appropriate than one of whatever your mains are...How about my center? ;) :o

How about my center? ;) :o
:) I just noticed that your sub is almost as big as your TV:eek:

Maybe a bigger screen to go with that humonguous sound system may be in order, no? ;)

is your center horizontal or vertical like your mains?

ok...I just looked at it...brutal!

Also, your surrounds are right beside the end wall and they're low....certainly not optimal by any means.

Naw Ben. His surrounds are fine, especially for music, which I think he does quite a bit of. Works for movies too.....I used to have mine like that and they worked great.

again...I can't argue for how he has his speakers setup. But his is a prime example of my pet peeve...big, driver-laden towers and a horizontal center speaker with multiple drivers...brutal, and wrong...simple as that.

Calling someone else's system "wrong" is never that simple as I am sure we will soon find out.

I agree...I can't wait to hear from him now :)

But his is a prime example of my pet peeve...big, driver-laden towers and a horizontal center speaker with multiple drivers...brutal, and wrong...simple as that.Meanies. :(

Maybe you should read up on my center speaker. Or my speakers in general. ;)

The coaxial UniQ driver in all my speakers is identical.

(My setup is laid out a little different now in my current abode; but very similarly. The surrounds are up maybe 10" higher than pictured.)

I don't need to read about what I know is an inferior speaker...it's a center channel speaker, so it's not as good as it could be...simple as that.

And tweeter in the middle flanked by 2 drivers is not optimal at all...comb filtering etc...not good at all. Your system might sound better with no center channel...

I like to blow small speakers. :p

I don't need to read about what I know is an inferior speaker...it's a center channel speaker, so it's not as good as it could be...simple as that.

And tweeter in the middle flanked by 2 drivers is not optimal at all...comb filtering etc...not good at all. Your system might sound better with no center channel...Well, (and quite honestly completely) unknown to me when I bought it, that center channel design, with its coaxial driver, is the best you can get if you are going to get a horizontal center channel speaker. So, I got lucky. It suffers from none of the usual pitfalls common to horizontal center channel speakers. (Comb filtering isn't really one of those, btw. Comb filtering becomes a concern when, for example, you use a phantom center, and the drivers that are producing identical content are at a greater distance from one another than that encountered in a typical MTM center.) The two flanking drivers are woofers and they are are crossed in at a very low 350Hz, so there is NO midrange lobing (maybe lobing was what you were trying to say). The coincidentally arrayed middle UniQ driver covers the entire range from 350Hz to 15kHz as a single point source.

Hey, my ROTEL is THX certified. Does that not count for anything? :(


HERE (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13618331#post13618331) is what some dork says about center channel speakers.

Sure it does...

The thing I love about this hobby is the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of perfection...we can all strive for better. Which is exactly what I'm doing..

And we're both Rotel guys...which is cool :)

Ben

And we're both Rotel guys...which is cool :)Yeah, I love cheese dip, too. :)

well written....we cleary have nothing to argue about....I think.

well written....we cleary have nothing to argue about....I think.Thanks. I copied and pasted it.

Argue? Moi? :confused:


So, should I get a new set of speakers or get a new TV first? :o

I got a 34XBR910 from Colorado for $300!! You should have been all over that :)

I'm sure your speakers sound good....but you're not in an ideal room to begin with.

Rotel? Don't they also make those pocket fishing rods they sell on TV. ;)

I got a 34XBR910 from Colorado for $300!! You should have been all over that :)The state was sellin' TVs? :confused:

When I got divorced, I was hoping my ex would want the TV. But, noooooo. One of the first things she bought? A new TV. I had to spend my money replacing stupid things like a bed. Pffft.


I'm sure your speakers sound good....but you're not in an ideal room to begin with.These speakers will be with me for a looooong time. After I replace my TV (god knows when), I'll be looking to replace my receiver with something that's "whatever-comes-after-HDMI-capable".

If I had the dough, I might buy a 3rd matching tower since they've been discontinued and leave it boxed up until I can accommodate it in the center; maybe in 10 years or so.


You and your fancy shmancy British speakers. Who would buy speakers from a British speaker company, anyway. :rolleyes:

Rotel? Don't they also make those pocket fishing rods they sell on TV. ;)It's a floor polish AND a dessert topping.

And it is still WAY smaller than many others desire. :)

4.5 is too small

"8" is Decent

"12" is desired

"15" is just too big. :eek: :p

Total audio noob, here.

What about 3 of the same center channel speakers, set up as Left / Center / Right. I just bought a center channel speaker that I am happy with that I can get 2 more of for pretty good deal yet.

I could keep the left and the right horizontal like the center or vertical.

I am not sure how big of a deal the orientation is? These are $50 - $100 dollar speakers which I assume is a little less quality than you all are talking.

Total audio noob, here.

What about 3 of the same center channel speakers, set up as Left / Center / Right. I just bought a center channel speaker that I am happy with that I can get 2 more of for pretty good deal yet.

I could keep the left and the right horizontal like the center or vertical.

I am not sure how big of a deal the orientation is? These are $50 - $100 dollar speakers which I assume is a little less quality than you all are talking.
The issue, which we have dealt with in many threads, is that the horizontal arrangement is inherently flawed, whether used as a center or anywhere else. If you are OK with it, fine.