SVS MTS Family - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 635 Old 06-28-2007, 04:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Lindahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex-amp View Post

No. As already pointed out you are just trading horizontal lobing for vertical lobing.
Vertical lobing is going to be more noticeable with the speaker above or below the set and much more likely set-up than sitting outside the 10' wide horizontal lobing free spot at 10'. Then you add the issue of another crossover and the phases changes of a 3 way.

Actually, all you have to do is aim the WTMW at the listening position. Vertical lobing is less of an issue, until you start adding multiple tiers of seating (not a typical environment by any means).
Lindahl is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 635 Old 06-28-2007, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post

Just because you can poorly design an MTM center, doesn't mean all of them are bad. Anecdotal measurements only work to support the other side of the argument - which I plan to show as soon as I get some free time at home.

Why do you keep bringing me into this crap? I've never designed a toppled MTM center. You see, I have functioning ears and some experience, so I know not to bother trying to find the right bandaids to fix miserably flawed designs.

And measurements are not anecdotal. They are empirical. Basic rule of science there.

And please do, take good measurements at ~5deg intervals so we can all laugh at how wretched even a well-designed toppled MTM is. (Though the only Rick Craig-designed speaker I've heard is the ur-Linus line array, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he can ameliorate the inherently fatal flaws of the toppled MTM as well as anyone else can.)

Quote:


Neither have major issues in vertical response. Only vertical MTMs and controlled-directivity speakers have major issues in vertical response, once outside the main listening angle. It's time you gave up on this strawman.

It's not a strawman. As others appear capable of realizing, an MT will have more constrained vertical directivity than a toppled MTM will, regardless of whether or not there are woofers on either side of said MT playing below ~300Hz or so. (There are speakers that combine the worst of toppled-MTM performance with WMTW performance, such as that NHT center with a dome mid. For a company with such a history of excellent-sounding products, that one is a really surprising dog.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post

Here, look at the vertical off-axis response of the 1266-SE floorstander. As you can see, if you stay within a reasonable listening angle (+/- 15 degrees), there is no problem with the off-axis response of a well-designed MTM along it's longer axis.

The problem is, of course, that its directivity in the vertical plane is too wide. Exacerbating floor/ceiling bounce issues. A +/- 15deg angle won't show that, though the trend it shows (little change in the HF over that 30deg window) if it holds true over more extreme angles, proves my point quite well, thank you very much.

For the record, here is the response of that center in the horizontal plane, from the above-linked article:



What unmitigated f'n garbage. Even by the nearly nonexistent standards of toppled-MTMs, that's ridiculously poor performance.

Next you're going to want to tell me that there's nothing wrong with ultra-high-inductance subwoofer drivers...

Quote:


If you want to argue about off-axis responses interfering with the on-axis frequency response, due to the reflections off the side walls, you'll have to wait until I can do some measurements at home. I can assure you that the reflected off-axis frequency response does not appreciably change the on-axis frequency response for a typical positioning of a center speaker.

Sorry, but one only needs to listen to one of these wretched things in order to know that you're wrong.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
Multichannel music (and video) urban loft living room system 
DS-21 is offline  
post #93 of 635 Old 06-28-2007, 06:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mazersteven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A lot of people said Wayne Chrebet, and Doug Flutie couldn't play football because of their size.

Maybe, just maybe there is something different about this center (even though it is a MTM design that will prove people wrong). Have you ever heard of "Don't judge a book by it's cover"?
mazersteven is offline  
post #94 of 635 Old 06-28-2007, 07:12 PM
Senior Member
 
vinyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazersteven View Post

Maybe, just maybe there is something different about this center (even though it is a MTM design that will prove people wrong

Please tell us how this horizontal center design maybe' different.

Most people don't know what they want...but, they're pretty sure they haven't got it. ©

vinyl is offline  
post #95 of 635 Old 06-28-2007, 09:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cschang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 14,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

For the record, here is the response of that center in the horizontal plane, from the above-linked article:

You need to read the accompanying text with that measurement.....it is what we have been saying:

"But up to about 15° off-axis (not shown)about the width of a typical three-seat couch 10 feet or so from the speakersthe response tracks the on-axis curve very closely, except for a narrow dip centered at around 3.5kHz and reaching a maximum of -5dB. "

-curtis

Owner of Wave Crest Audio
Volunteer Mod at the Ascend Acoustics Forum
Like all things on the Internet, do your research, as forums have a good amount of misinformation.
Help beat breast cancer!

cschang is offline  
post #96 of 635 Old 06-28-2007, 10:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
Andyisc00l's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I wish someone had enough expertise in order to put in to perspective how might the new MTS speakers might sound. Are there any other speakers using the new scanspeak tweeter? Like how might they sound compared to the onix rockets or anything else in that price range?


All speculation of course, but I'm in the market and these are interesting.
Andyisc00l is offline  
post #97 of 635 Old 06-28-2007, 10:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Lindahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:


And please do, take good measurements at ~5deg intervals so we can all laugh at how wretched even a well-designed toppled MTM is.

No need. The measurements of the 1266 show that +/- 15 degrees shows no problems.

That said, I will take measurements just the same. You should keep in mind that mine is not a well-designed toppled MTM - it isn't designed for horizontal use. Thus, they may not perform quite as well as a center designed for it. However, the measurements I will take will illustrate that the reflections from further off-axis responses are not frequency response problematic if it performs well within the listening window. In short, what should be examined is the delta frequency response of the measurements before and after reflection-point absorption. This will illuminate how much of a problem these severely off-axis reflections are, in the frequencies in which the midwoofers will interfere with one another. I've done these measurements in the past, and have found that treating the reflection points does just about nothing to the frequency response in these frequency ranges. The only significant effect is in the impulse response and decay times, and the majority at lower frequencies (as I've mentioned earlier). The best way I can explain the results, is that the reflection point SPL is much lower than the direct SPL, due to distance travelled (and possibly minor absorbtion), that the additive effect is barely measurable, and thus, inaudible. Remember, adding decibels is not linear, in any shape or form. The majority of problems of the first reflection points are in the 100hz-500hz range, where midwoofer interference shouldn't exist. The longer decay times due to the reflections at these frequencies muddy up the frequencies associated with speech intelligibility (located in the low khz). This is why first-order reflection treatment is important - not because of frequency response (in a typical room).

On a side note: an expertly designed horizontal MTM will generally have a crossover of ~2khz (preferably lower), and the tweeter will be off centered to minimize the center-to-center distance of the two midwoofers. However, the latter is rarely done, mostly to save money so the same crossover and cabinet can be used (a mistake at some price points).

Quote:


It's not a strawman. As others appear capable of realizing, an MT will have more constrained vertical directivity than a toppled MTM will, regardless of whether or not there are woofers on either side of said MT playing below ~300Hz or so.

Not at all. This is just plain false. There's nothing magical about an MT that constrains vertical directivity more than an MTM. As you get off axis from a TM, all you see is the typical HF roll-off and a narrow dip at the crossover point, where the center-to-center distance of the tweeter and midwoofer become large enough such that they create significant interference (wider dip = shallower crossover). This is hardly constrained vertical directivity. Note that this is the same dip mentioned in the quote that Curtis made in his last post.

Quote:


little change in the HF over that 30deg window

This has nothing to do with the directivity of an MTM. This has to do with the dispersion characteristics of the tweeter. The same tweeter in any alignment (save for a horn/waveguide) will show the same HF dispersion characteristics.

Quote:


For the record, here is the response of that center in the horizontal plane, from the above-linked article. What unmitigated f'n garbage. Even by the nearly nonexistent standards of toppled-MTMs, that's ridiculously poor performance.

Which should have nothing to do with this discussion. The off-axis measurements are at 45 degrees and 60 degrees, not +/- 15 degrees. Of course you'll have problems with a horizontal MTM when your listening window is 90-120 degrees wide! You need to do a better job analyzing the graphs (you continuously and conveniently leave out the important details). I'd prefer Ultimate AV to select off-axis measurements that mirror the typical listening window, rather than the extreme 45 and 60 degrees (at least for centers). This would illuminate which MTM centers were poorly designed, and which were well-designed. Until then, one has to rely on the text (that which Curtis quoted).
Lindahl is offline  
post #98 of 635 Old 06-29-2007, 01:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post

No need. The measurements of the 1266 show that +/- 15 degrees shows no problems.

So back to the bizarre delusion that reflections from the off-axis radiation don't affect the overall power response at the listening position?

Quote:


On a side note: an expertly designed horizontal MTM will generally have a crossover of ~2khz (preferably lower), and the tweeter will be off centered to minimize the center-to-center distance of the two midwoofers. However, the latter is rarely done, mostly to save money so the same crossover and cabinet can be used (a mistake at some price points).

The Tannoy center I linked to above does both of those things, and the measurements reveal that it does not meet a necessary condition (smooth power response in the midrange) for good sound. QED.

(Never mind that Tannoy's chances, considering their illustrious heritage, advanced labs, and deep, deep talent bench, are far more likely to get it right than a small startup that makes some great subs but is just getting its feet wet in the area of expensive and hopefully good speakers. If the likes of Tannoy and the Harman companies can't make toppled MTM's that meet minimum necessary conditions for good sound, I submit that nobody can.)

Quote:


Not at all. This is just plain false. There's nothing magical about an MT that constrains vertical directivity more than an MTM.

A well-designed MT will aim its vertical null at the floor given a recommended placement height and listening distance, so the major smear-factor is lessened compared to a toppled MTM. Not completely eliminated, but certainly less prominent.

Quote:


This has nothing to do with the directivity of an MTM.

Actually it has quite a lot to do with it. It proves my point that toppled MTM's have their useful radiation pattern in the wrong axis, vertical rather than horizontal.

Quote:


Which should have nothing to do with this discussion. The off-axis measurements are at 45 degrees and 60 degrees, not +/- 15 degrees.

So what? 45deg and 60deg radiation are part of the overall power response, too.

Quote:


Of course you'll have problems with a horizontal MTM when your listening window is 90-120 degrees wide!

So you admit it is an inferior solution to a well-designed center. My 8" Tannoy Dual Concentric-based center (and mains) all have 90deg listening windows, for instance.

Quote:


You need to do a better job analyzing the graphs (you continuously and conveniently leave out the important details).

I'm leaving out nothing, except your strange and utterly unfounded contention that for some reason what the speaker outputs at 45 and 60 deg will never reach a listener's ears.

Quote:


This would illuminate which MTM centers were poorly designed, and which were well-designed. Until then, one has to rely on the text (that which Curtis quoted).

Serious listeners already know that ratio, at least for toppled MTM's rather than MTM's in general. It is 0% well designed:100% poorly designed.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
Multichannel music (and video) urban loft living room system 
DS-21 is offline  
post #99 of 635 Old 06-29-2007, 02:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Lindahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
A well-designed MT will aim its vertical null at the floor given a recommended placement height and listening distance, so the major smear-factor is lessened compared to a toppled MTM.

This is a load of crap. The vertical null is in and around the crossover frequency (2khz-4khz), which can't be anywhere near the floor-bounce frequency (150-300hz), unless you live in a clown house (think clown cars). In case you want to argue this silliness, you could do a web search or you could also look here and read:
Quote:
As with most floorstanding speakers, the RF-83's response dips at 200 Hz because of acoustical interference from a floor bounce.

Moving on...

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
little change in the HF over that 30deg window

This has nothing to do with the directivity of an MTM. This has to do with the dispersion characteristics of the tweeter. The same tweeter in any alignment (save for a horn/waveguide) will show the same HF dispersion characteristics.

Actually it has quite a lot to do with it. It proves my point that toppled MTM's have their useful radiation pattern in the wrong axis, vertical rather than horizontal.

I took the liberty of adding proper context to the quote (which you conveniently left out, once again). You crack me up. The lack of high frequency rolloff in one MTM proves that MTMs have a different HF radiation patterns? Oops looks like other speaker alignments can have the same HF dispersion characteristic. Gee, I wonder if off-axis HF response has to do with the tweeter's dispersion characteristics and not the alignment of the speaker?

Quote:
So you admit it is an inferior solution to a well-designed center

Only if you have to listen more than 15 degrees off axis. Constricting the listening window to 15 degrees off axis is in no way a serious compromise. This is more than enough window to accommodate a typical listening environment (especially when the critical listener is almost always on-axis).

Quote:
I'm leaving out nothing, except your strange and utterly unfounded contention that for some reason what the speaker outputs at 45 and 60 deg will never reach a listener's ears.... So what? 45deg and 60deg radiation are part of the overall power response, too....

You consistently leave out the context of the measurements you post. As for the relationship between off-axis frequency response and in-room frequency response with reflection points: I've done the measurements in my room (which is a fairly typical environment). Adding absorption to the first reflection points does not appreciably alter the frequency response. Impulse and decay times are affected, however, but these aren't a problem in midwoofer interference land (~>800hz). My contention is founded upon real environment measuring, which is certainly better than the handwaving you resort to. Like I said earlier, if I have time to take measurements this weekend, I'll illustrate this point. In addition to measurements, I also offered up the explanation in my last post that decibels are not additive, but are a logarithmic function. Therefore, the lower SPL reflection, due to distance and typical room absorption at the frequencies of midwoofer interference, does not appreciably change the frequency response. Keep in mind that a center speaker is in the middle of the room, and is quite far from the side-walls so the loss is much greater than for mains.
Lindahl is offline  
post #100 of 635 Old 06-29-2007, 03:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sivadselim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: CO
Posts: 16,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 62
The center channel is probably (arguably) the most important speaker in a HT setup.

The fact remains that manufacturers still provide what NONE of us can really argue is the worst possible design for a center channel speaker, the horizontal MTM. And not only do they continue providing this same design, many still provide the worst possible implementation of this design.

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
sivadselim is offline  
post #101 of 635 Old 06-30-2007, 06:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
stubeeef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Winston Salem NC
Posts: 838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Gang, Dont' forget, for the optimum listening experience, you must clean out the ear wax. Do not, I repeat, Do Not turn your head 1 degree either direction from center while listening. Also control your breathing because that adds internal freq noise within the skull.
stubeeef is offline  
post #102 of 635 Old 06-30-2007, 11:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ironmike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Washington 98047
Posts: 1,710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
^ I agree
Ironmike86 is offline  
post #103 of 635 Old 07-11-2007, 10:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jay_WJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post

Not quite as good as the Seas Millenium in reaching down low with low distortion, but still one of the top in the market in that respect. Overall, it has one of the lowest distortions of all DIY tweeters.

Late for the discussion. Actually I'm shocked to see the Air Circ tweeter in the SVS mid-priced speaker line!

BTW, note that Zaph's harmonic distortion test is produced by a sort of quick and easy method. It only gives a bird-eye view in a single graph. For a more thorough test of this tweeter, see here:

http://www.customanalogue.com/elsinore/elsinore_15.htm

and

http://www.markk.claub.net/Testing/S...eerlessHDS.htm

Clearly, this tweeter is not "one of the best tweeters" but THE best tweeter w.r.t. nonlinear distortion among tweeters that have been tested and reported in DIY circles.

I actually started speaker DIY recently because I wanted to own speakers that outperform commercial retail products costing several times more. But if ID companies like SVS offer this good product at such a low price, why need to DIY other than just for fun? In fact, if you want to build speakers with the same drivers as in MTS, it will cost much more than its retail price, if you include all kinds of necessary tools and accessories in the calculation.

Of course, we don't know yet how good the end result will be. But I'm still impressed.

I just hope my 2-way design I'm currently working on with the Peerless HDS tweeter and the Usher 8945P woofer will reward my painstaking effort.
Jay_WJ is offline  
post #104 of 635 Old 07-11-2007, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Lindahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_WJ View Post

Actually I'm shocked to see the Air Circ tweeter in the SVS mid-priced speaker line!

I'm with you on this one.

Quote:
I just hope my 2-way design I'm currently working on with the Peerless HDS tweeter and the Usher 8945P woofer will reward my painstaking effort.

Wandering off topic a little bit, but Rick Craig employed the HDS in the design of my LCRs. It's a great tweeter with a very smooth sound and can handle serious dynamic peaks without getting harsh... not that you could really try this in a 2-way design...
Lindahl is offline  
post #105 of 635 Old 07-11-2007, 02:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
metalsaber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Seeing as close to the factory as I am, it would be cool to hear a demo considering I was interested in them.
metalsaber is offline  
post #106 of 635 Old 07-11-2007, 08:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kpt_Krunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
wow - sure is a lot of discussion on a speaker that no one has even heard yet! Interesting reading though - you sure do learn a lot on here. To be honest though, if you listened to and believed everything you read on here, we'd all own NOTHING - as anyone can pick anything apart on here. The way I see it, if is sounds good to you, it sounds good to you. No sense arguing over it.

But like I said - there sure is a lot of interestng discussion going on about all this. Though i like my MTM's just fine, you can notice a difference when listening off axis (the lobing I guess). But since I don't sit off axis (usually), it doesn't bother me

"it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it"
Kpt_Krunch is offline  
post #107 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 11:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
oneeyeblind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Okay everyone needs to stop it with the MTM issues. Let the product speak for its self and see if you like it or not. This SVS''s mid line speaker they still have the LTS line that I would guess will be lager and may go a different route with the center channel. Because that system will be more no holds barred and made for bigger rooms.

so lets focous on the product and not trash the speakers before they have even come out. These speakers are very interesting and many make like them even with the MTM center.

Personally These are very interesting to me. If SVS goes for a nutrel sound I will denfitily want to there them. So many companies are going for a singneture sound or a colored sound and thats not what I'am looking for. But from what has been shown they should sound atleat good and probably great.

I'am also excited to see the LTS I'am sure a 7.1 system of the LTS with an Ultra13/2 or two would be an excelent system.

ShaunH
oneeyeblind is offline  
post #108 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 11:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sivadselim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: CO
Posts: 16,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneeyeblind View Post

so lets focous on the product and not trash the speakers before they have even come out. These speakers are very interesting and many make like them even with the MTM center.

No one's trashing the speakers, just the MTM design.

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
sivadselim is offline  
post #109 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 12:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
oneeyeblind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

No one's trashing the speakers, just the MTM design.


Thats fine but this should be about the speakers not The pros and cons of an MTM desgein. The discussion made valid points but they may or may not apply to speakers.

ShaunH
oneeyeblind is offline  
post #110 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 03:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 781
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneeyeblind View Post

Thats fine but this should be about the speakers not The pros and cons of an MTM desgein. The discussion made valid points but they may or may not apply to speakers.

I

This is 100% about the speakers, because of the fact that they are using an MTM design. They're are no "pros" to this design. (Unless being cheaper to produce is a pro.) But they're are a myriad of "cons".

SVS is not going to reinvent the wheel with their MTM. As posted earlier, if companies like Harmon Int'l can't produce one that measures well, with the vast resources at their disposal, then it almost certainly can't be done. That is why the points being made here do apply to the MTS speakers.

Little Loft Home Theater
dftkell is online now  
post #111 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 04:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
oneeyeblind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post

This is 100% about the speakers, because of the fact that they are using an MTM design. They're are no "pros" to this design. (Unless being cheaper to produce is a pro.) But they're are a myriad of "cons".

SVS is not going to reinvent the wheel with their MTM. As posted earlier, if companies like Harmon Int'l can't produce one that measures well, with the vast resources at their disposal, then it almost certainly can't be done. That is why the points being made here do apply to the MTS speakers.


If thats way you feel then I understand and I agree the center channel is a compromise. But speakers are about compromise and anyone who doesn't believe that is not looking at speakers that with in this price range or size range.

I never said they where but there are other merits and points to this line of speakers. If svs feels this is a compromise they willing to make then I'm willing to at least see a review before I jump all over them for it. I'm happy svs went with a MTM no I'm not, but I will to let the speaker stand or fall on its own merit. Not my bais of what I think should have been done.

I would assume that SVs wouldn't send a system that didn't sound good. Most people can't fit a huge speaker on top of there TV. I would guess that svs thought that changing the driver array would have negatively effect speaker matching. But thats only a guess. For what ever reason svs chose a MTM and heck it may have been cost. But that doesn't mean that speakers are automatically terrible.

ShaunH
oneeyeblind is offline  
post #112 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 05:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xcjago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Harbor City, CA
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post

This is 100% about the speakers, because of the fact that they are using an MTM design. They're are no "pros" to this design. (Unless being cheaper to produce is a pro.) But they're are a myriad of "cons".

SVS is not going to reinvent the wheel with their MTM. As posted earlier, if companies like Harmon Int'l can't produce one that measures well, with the vast resources at their disposal, then it almost certainly can't be done. That is why the points being made here do apply to the MTS speakers.


Actually, there are pros to an MTM design. Since you don't have to spend more money on designing a 3-way, you can spend more money on the drivers and get higher quality drivers. On axis, the MTM will sound better, off axis the 3-way will sound better. Also, not all MTM were perform as bad. It depends on the crossover between the tweeter and the woofer. It also depends on the distance between the woofers.
xcjago is offline  
post #113 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 05:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 781
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneeyeblind View Post

If thats way you feel then I understand and I agree the center channel is a compromise. But speakers are about compromise and anyone who doesn't believe that is not looking at speakers that with in this price range or size range.

There is always compromise in speaker design until you get to the price-is-no-object level. But, in this price range, there are more intelligently designed center speakers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneeyeblind View Post

If svs feels this is a compromise they willing to make then I'm willing to at least see a review before I jump all over them for it.

If a review of the new center includes measurements, you will be disappointed. A speaker of this design has never measured well off axis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneeyeblind View Post

Most people can't fit a huge speaker on top of there TV.

Again, there are better designed centers in the same price range and that are of similar size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneeyeblind View Post

But that doesn't mean that speakers are automatically terrible.

What it does mean is that it will be subject to the same pitfalls experienced by EVERY manufacturer that has put forth this design, regardless of crossover, driver selection, etc.

Little Loft Home Theater
dftkell is online now  
post #114 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 05:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 781
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by xcjago View Post

Actually, there are pros to an MTM design. Since you don't have to spend more money on designing a 3-way, you can spend more money on the drivers and get higher quality drivers. On axis, the MTM will sound better, off axis the 3-way will sound better. Also, not all MTM were perform as bad. It depends on the crossover between the tweeter and the woofer. It also depends on the distance between the woofers.

Higher quality drivers are meaningless if not implemented correctly.

An MTM does not sound better on axis than a good three-way. I'd be curious to hear how you would support a statement like that.

Do you have one example of an MTM that performs and measures well?

Little Loft Home Theater
dftkell is online now  
post #115 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 05:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
oneeyeblind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post

There is always compromise in speaker design until you get to the price-is-no-object level. But, in this price range, there are more intelligently designed center speakers.


I agree with your first sentence. But I would also argue that all horizontal centers have weakness.

Quote:


If a review of the new center includes measurements, you will be disappointed. A speaker of this design has never measured well off axis.



Again, there are better designed centers in the same price range and that are of similar size.

I will make that decision when I see the review. And again I would argue that unless you have a vertical center that there will be issue with whatever horizontal design used.

Quote:


What it does mean is that it will be subject to the same pitfalls experienced by EVERY manufacturer that has put forth this design, regardless of crossover, driver selection, etc

Well we have to see. Seeing as speakers not out yet and we don't know the designer goals yet. it maybe worse or better than other speakers in tis price range we will just have to see.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post

Higher quality drivers are meaningless if not implemented correctly.

An MTM does not sound better on axis than a good three-way. I'd be curious to hear how you would support a statement like that.

Do you have one example of an MTM that performs and measures well?

If you feel so strongly that this speaker is not going to be a good speaker then please say so. MTM designs are not the best center channel choices for sure but neither are horizontal centers in general.

ShaunH
oneeyeblind is offline  
post #116 of 635 Old 07-14-2007, 06:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
xcjago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Harbor City, CA
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post

Higher quality drivers are meaningless if not implemented correctly.

An MTM does not sound better on axis than a good three-way. I'd be curious to hear how you would support a statement like that.

Do you have one example of an MTM that performs and measures well?

Actually that is a ridiculous statement. Higher quality drivers will improve the sound. That's like saying upgrading your speakers will not improve the sound at all because your amp sucks.

An optimally designed MTM will sound better than a three way on axis because of superior drivers. Why don't you show me some measurements that prove a MTM sounds worse than a three way on axis?
xcjago is offline  
post #117 of 635 Old 07-15-2007, 05:37 AM
Advanced Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 781
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by xcjago View Post

Actually that is a ridiculous statement. Higher quality drivers will improve the sound. That's like saying upgrading your speakers will not improve the sound at all because your amp sucks.

An optimally designed MTM will sound better than a three way on axis because of superior drivers. Why don't you show me some measurements that prove a MTM sounds worse than a three way on axis?

If you reread my previous post, you'll see that I never said higher quality drivers don't or can't improve sound.

The use of an expensive tweeter has become smoke and mirrors for everyone cheerleading these speakers. "Wow, they use a $200 tweeter! They must be awesome!" There's more to it than that.

I said that high quality drivers are meaningless if not implemented properly. The driver's performance is directly related to the volume of it's enclosure, it's crossover point with other drivers in the speaker, etc., etc.

When you listen to a speaker, you are not just hearing the tweeter or the woofer, rather you are hearing how they are integrated within a multiway system.

So high quality is a great start. But if you don't use it right, it's advantages quickly diminish.

An optimally designed MTM can perform well on axis. So can an optimally designed three-way. The difference occurs off-axis. That is where the MTM breaks down.

For the measurements you're looking for, look back at some the previous posts in this thread or go to UltimateAV.com and look at the measurements for ANY speaker system that uses an MTM center.

Little Loft Home Theater
dftkell is online now  
post #118 of 635 Old 07-15-2007, 02:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
stubeeef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Winston Salem NC
Posts: 838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
dftkell,
What speakers, amps, and cables do you use?
Please post a picture.
stubeeef is offline  
post #119 of 635 Old 07-15-2007, 04:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
dftkell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 781
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubeeef View Post

dftkell,
What speakers, amps, and cables do you use?
Please post a picture.

Moved into a NYC loft two years ago. The only place for the TV was above the fireplace--no place for center channel dilema--so I (sadly) sold my B&W's on Audiogon.

Current system in living area:

Artison Portrait L/C/R speakers
Sonance in ceiling rears (623 TR's)
B&W ASW 675 sub
Rotel RSX-1056 receiver
Marantz DV-4500 DVD player
Fujitsu Plasma
TWC HD cable box
Monster cables and interconnects

Bedroom system:

Athena Micra 6 package
Onkyo TX-SR503
Sony DVD player
TWC HD cable box
Panasonic Plasma
Blue Jeans Cable

I won't be back to my home computer until later tonight. If you still want to see pic's then, I will gladly post them.

P.S. Stubeef, what do you use?

Little Loft Home Theater
dftkell is online now  
post #120 of 635 Old 07-15-2007, 06:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
stubeeef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Winston Salem NC
Posts: 838
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I used to use kef 105.2's and kef 101.1's through 2 Carver M500t's and a C-4000. My bedroom is a B&O 5000 system (late 80's vintage). I sold the M500's years ago, still have the Kef's in a storage unit (sad) along with the B&O system and the Carver C-4000 (with sonic holography ).
Using a Pio Elite 84 for now while I wait for the 94 to be released. Using an Epson 1080p front proj onto a 110" DIY screen. HoHum.

Now I'm SVS with SCS upfront, SBS surround, and a PB12nsd. Sounds fairly awesome to me, but then again I'm not an EXPERT. Just a consumer. I have noticed that the MtM thing doesn't bother the Ascend fans either.

I also have tinnitus and don't have great hearing anymore (X Navy Pilot).

I find it funny you use the Monster cables, but hey, whatever. Lots of stuff out there about the waste that they are, I guess in some theory they are great, but lots of stuff like this that kinda kills the marketing theory that Monster has abused so well (bose too).

Seems that the artisons use a modified MttM design with quite a bit of spacing between the Mids....Is that optimal design? and the off axis thing, is that Optimal as well? I have no idea. I have not heard them either, kinda like no one here has heard the MTS line yet either.

Enjoy what you have, and own a center channel when you can.
stubeeef is offline  
Reply Speakers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off