Originally Posted by pepar
It's not unusual to have to make some compromises, which "toppling" an MTM certainly qualifies.
Except that it's not really a compromise, but an abject waste of money. Running a toppled-MTM center costs more than just going phantom, while sounding worse. Now, is phantom a compromise over a proper front trio of identical speakers used in at the same elevation and orientation? No question. IMO, the reason multichannel audio hasn't taken off as it should have over the past decade - because it is
much more closer-to-real sounding than 2-channel when done right - is because we've been plagued by badly-designed, bad-sounding center channels that ruin the whole thing.
And regardless of who the gentleman who asked the question was, my points are substantively correct. Every measurement ever published of the polar or power response of a toppled MTM speaker shows it. And the measurements look better than the listening sounds...
Not that any of this stuff has anything to do with Audyssey, who after all don't design, make, market, or even certify speakers. (Except, I guess, for small subs or shelf systems.) Except in that even really amazing technology - which I have found MultEQ XT and Dynamic EQ to be - cannot be expected to wholly overcome fatal flaws in system design such as toppled-MTM center channels.