or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › SVS MTS Family
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SVS MTS Family - Page 5

post #121 of 635
So, what does all this MTM business mean in practical terms for those of us that don't quite understand the graphs and other technical concepts completely? I know there's some disagreement but would the safest bet be to purchase a horizontally arrayed center with WTMW configuration (or other non-MTM) if we can't manage a vertically oriented center?

Sorry I know this is a SVS thread but with all this talk about MTM centers I'm looking for a little practical guidance.

I'm strongly considering the Paradigm CC-690 for use with the Paradigm Studio 100's. To me it seems it has a WMTMMW configuration, would that be superior to an MTM or does it suffer the same design flaw?
post #122 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubeeef View Post

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.

Sorry about the tinnitus...hopefully it's not too bad. X-Navy pilot is a pretty cool though.

I'm not an expert either. Just another guy who's loved Hi-fi since he was a kid and learns a lot from this forum.

When we bought this apartment a few years ago we did a gut renovation and I had an A/V dealer in Manhattan do the prewiring and installation. Monster was the cable they recommended and at the time I knew a decent amount about equipment but not much about cables/interconnects so I went with it.

Since I've been reading this forum, I've learned a lot about wires/cables and now I know Monster is overpriced and unnecessary. Wouldn't do it again. I paid at least 50% more than needed for cables/wires...Oh, well, live and learn. When I first saw the Roger-Russel website, it was an eye-opener.

When I did my bedroom last year I wised up a bit and went Blue Jeans Cable. For future projects, I think Parts Express is probably the best deal out there.

The Artisons are not an optimal design by any means. They were just simply the best solution I could find for above our fireplace. Properly positioned, I have no doubt that your SVS setup sounds much better.

The Artison's use a dual mono center channel--actually two built in speakers for the center--in addition to having a built in left and right speaker. A vertical tweeter and woofer is on both sides of the plasma, each receiving the center channel signal. When you're in the sweet spot it works very well. Dialogue appears to come from the center of the screen. When you move far off axis, like in our recliner off to the side, the intelligibility remains good but the image starts to shift away from the center of the screen to the closer speaker. Again, it's not an optimal design and I knew that going into it. I will say though, that they sound surprisingly good for what they are and can go to high volumes without noticeable distortion. And now that I have a one-year old son who is starting to walk, having the speakers up high is an added bonus.

When we eventually move out to the suburbs and into a house in a couple years, I would like to have a dedicated media room or home theater. I'm jealous of yours. I'm thinking of trying to go DIY for the speakers...we'll see how good my woodworking skills are at that point.
post #123 of 635
Ok, maybe it's a MMTMMM then?
post #124 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnn1265 View Post

Sorry I know this is a SVS thread but with all this talk about MTM centers I'm looking for a little practical guidance.

It means look for a center channel that employs one of the following topologies:

1) A coaxial driver, with or without bass augmentation.
2) A WMTW or WMTMW, with the center drivers vertically arrayed. (I've seen a Jamo system with a short vertical MTM array flanked by two woofers, so they exist.)
3) A conventional MT. Truth of the matter is, a "normal" small bookshelf isn't much taller than a toppled MTM.

And go phantom center if that is the only option besides adding a toppled MTM to your system.

Quote:
I'm strongly considering the Paradigm CC-690 for use with the Paradigm Studio 100's. To me it seems it has a WMTMMW configuration, would that be superior to an MTM or does it suffer the same design flaw?

Just going by looks (and Paradigm's reputation) that appears to be an excellent choice, assuming you use mains from the same line. The crossover between the midrange and the flanking drivers should be sufficiently low to avoid any of the midrange power response problems we've been discussing about the toppled-MTM plague.
post #125 of 635
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.

So your answer to a fatally and unchangeably flawed design is to throw money at it rather than scrap it and start from a fundamentally sound premise? That's a defense contractor's lobbyist's answer, not a real world one. To extend what dftkell has stated, I submit that lower quality (cost not always being a proxy for quality, of course) drivers employed in a sensible manner will always produce better results than elite-quality drivers tragically misused.

Quote:
On axis, the MTM will sound better, off axis the 3-way will sound better.

In an anechoic chamber, you are 100% correct. One will only hear the "lobe" pointed directly at one's listening position. But listening at a real world distance in a real world listening room, one hears the total power response of the speaker. In the case of a toppled MTM, the power response is always going to be utterly risible in the all-important midrange. Why some people lack the common sense to understand that (or have failed to measure it for themselves when they were setting up their own systems - you guys do take measurements in the process of setting up your audio systems, or pay a dealer to do it for you, don't you?) is way beyond my understanding.

Quote:
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.

Interesting assertion, but given that you didn't bother to post any sort of supporting evidence it remains only a flimsy assertion. Here's a challenge: show us one published measurement of a toppled MTM that doesn't have clearly awful midrange power response/polar response. I've posted several from some of the most savvy and resource-rich speaker companies in the industry that clearly show what an anathema the toppled MTM is to truly high-fidelity music reproduction. (Or home theater.)
post #126 of 635
Can't we just give this speaker design/theory a rest on this thread. Why don't you guys go argue this in the Ascend owners thread, at least their speakers on on the market, this one is nearly still vapor. It is getting both old and petty.
post #127 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubeeef View Post

Can't we just give this speaker design/theory a rest on this thread. Why don't you guys go argue this in the Ascend owners thread, at least their speakers on on the market, this one is nearly still vapor. It is getting both old and petty.

The other way to look at might be that there's no actual product to talk about, so the only thing of any interest at all is discussion of the design process that went into a future product.
post #128 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubeeef View Post

Can't we just give this speaker design/theory a rest on this thread. Why don't you guys go argue this in the Ascend owners thread, at least their speakers on on the market, this one is nearly still vapor. It is getting both old and petty.

Maybe, just maybe, if we beat this drum (not horse ) loudly enough, the manufacturers may take heed and rethink their center channel design, resulting in a better HT experience for us all.

I doubt it, though.
post #129 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

The other way to look at might be that there's no actual product to talk about, so the only thing of any interest at all is discussion of the design process that went into a future product.

I could see the merits of discussing a particular speaker design, but why did you choose this thread/product? It's a popular (merits aside) design, and I've seen lots of products discussed that use it, but I can't say I've seen it attacked with such venom. It's one thing to be knowledgeable and helpful, and another to be condescending and downright nasty. Frankly, it comes across as disingenuous.

-Robb
post #130 of 635
DS-21 is on some sort of crusade against the toppled MTM. Do a search on google for "toppled MTM" and you can find his posts on at least five different forums bashing it.

I would have to say it does make me curious. DS-21 would you say that this center:

http://www.aperionaudio.com/product/...,10,29,13.aspx

is better than this one:

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...c/cmt340c.html

simply because it's a 3-way?
post #131 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by xcjago View Post

I would have to say it does make me curious. DS-21 would you say that this center:

http://www.aperionaudio.com/product/...,10,29,13.aspx

is better than this one:

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...c/cmt340c.html

simply because it's a 3-way?

Yes. Now, they could both be awful. I haven't heard either one, and in general don't care for speakers that don't take care in tailoring the directivity of the tweeter at the bottom of its passband to that of the mid at the top of its passband. But the Aperion one has a shot at being reasonable, whereas the Ascend one is hopeless.
post #132 of 635
Don't get me wrong: I have no doubt DS-21 dislikes the MTM toppled design. The analysis of the MTM toppled design, though, just doesn't come across as "balanced" reporting (not that it has to -- DS-21 can come across however he/she wants). It's one thing to lay out the problems with the design, and another to use the language DS-21 uses. I have trouble believing DS-21 is not the kind of person to choose his/her words *very* carefully (I have even less doubt DS-21 is smart than of his/her opinion of the design), and that's what makes me wonder.

-Robb

Edit:

PS. In case anyone has missed it, here is full disclosure: I have been a SVS customer for years, have become friends with a number of the folks there, and even helped them with some software projects.
post #133 of 635
vaporware for now
post #134 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Just going by looks (and Paradigm's reputation) that appears to be an excellent choice, assuming you use mains from the same line. The crossover between the midrange and the flanking drivers should be sufficiently low to avoid any of the midrange power response problems we've been discussing about the toppled-MTM plague.

Thanks DS-21, appreciate the information and advice. It's fun to learn about these theoretical design issues and it certainly helps me feel like I'm making informed decisions on purchasing HT equipment (i.e. speakers). It's a lot of money I'll spend on them and they'll last me many years so choosing wisely is very important to me.

So, despite the fact that some folks are annoyed by the MTM theory/design flaw talk I think it's quite appropriate - as it is the chosen design of the manufacturer for this model. It's curious that people don't want to talk about the speaker's design considering there's not much else talk about at this point.
post #135 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by dftkell View Post

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

The Ascend 340SE sounds better to me than the NHT Classic Three.
post #136 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnn1265 View Post

So, despite the fact that some folks are annoyed by the MTM theory/design flaw talk I think it's quite appropriate - as it is the chosen design of the manufacturer for this model. It's curious that people don't want to talk about the speaker's design considering there's not much else talk about at this point.

It is always good to learn more, infact it is widely agreed upon. So much so there is a place for all the discussions.....

Audio theory, Setup and Chat

I find it very funny that this discussion is chosen in this thread and not one of the more accepted and liked speaker threads like the Ascends. The point has been made over and over about MtM as well as the fact that within the lobes, life is great.

Enjoy learning more, I know very little of theory, just some of the practical issues such as "what I like".
post #137 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbroy View Post

The analysis of the MTM toppled design, though, just doesn't come across as "balanced" reporting

I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure what "balance" has to do with anything. A "balanced" perspective, from your POV, seems to be something along the lines of the following:
"The independent measurements all point directly to conclusion x. However, the marketers charged with selling them and people who feel some affinity for said marketers and/or who are in some way invested in the concept they're marketing in some other way say that the conclusion is really y. So the truth is probably somewhere in between."
Sorry, but I had outgrown that kind of postmodernist "thinking" by the time I was 20.

What I'm suggesting is, ignore my words completely and just focus on the published measurements. If your listening experience has led you to believe, as mine has, that smooth FR measurements not only directly on axis but also all around the speaker, are a necessary (hardly sufficient, mind, but absolutely necessary) condition for high-fidelity audio reproduction, then the published measurements I have posted from Tom Nousaine and various magazine reviews provide all of the information one needs to reject any toppled-MTM as a risible design with no place in any audio system with the slightest pretensions to high fidelity. Is that an extreme statement? Maybe, in the sense that it does not equivocate. But not really, given that there is absolutely no meaningful evidence pointing towards a different interpretation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbroy View Post

PS. In case anyone has missed it, here is full disclosure: I have been a SVS customer for years, have become friends with a number of the folks there, and even helped them with some software projects.

Also, just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against SVS. I've never personally had reason to use any of their products but I've seen them on occasion and think their subwoofers are some of the top small-driver prefab subs out there. (Mostly because they, like Hsu but unlike most other prefab subwoofer makers, aren't shy about using appropriately-sized enclosures. But that's a different issue.) Nor, for that matter, did I "choose this thread/product," as you allege in an earlier post. A more thorough examination would reveal that I was not the first, second, or even third person to bemoan the badly-designed center channel on this thread. I simply amplified the argument of those who are correct on this issue and countered statements made by those who are wrong on this issue by posting independent published measurements showing beyond all doubt the real-world implications of incompetent center channel design. Even incompetent center channel design with a fancy tweeter.
post #138 of 635
And I and others disagree with you in the price range many folks have for centers. In that price range, you are better off putting the 3-way crossover money and midrange driver money into better two way drivers and crossover components for seating withing the center comb lobe -- which is most residential applications. Real Home Theaters requiring more than a 30 degree spread of quality sound need to look at WTMW's (if they aren't already using a main speaker behind a perforated screen).
Anyone wanting to draw more specific conclusions as to what price point a WTMW design becomes justified over an MTM should read the DIY Audio and HT Guide forums.
post #139 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure what "balance" has to do with anything. A "balanced" perspective, from your POV, seems to be something along the lines of the following:
"The independent measurements all point directly to conclusion x. However, the marketers charged with selling them and people who feel some affinity for said marketers and/or who are in some way invested in the concept they're marketing in some other way say that the conclusion is really y. So the truth is probably somewhere in between."
Sorry, but I had outgrown that kind of postmodernist "thinking" by the time I was 20.

Not true. Don't make a partial quote of me and then put words in my mouth -- it's plain rude. Heck, that's my only problem with anything you've said. It's one thing to present an analysis, present facts, or even just have a strong opinion. It's another to be nasty (even if you may be right).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

What I'm suggesting is, ignore my words completely and just focus on the published measurements.

You choose your words way too carefully for me to believe you want them ignored. The published data doesn't bother me (and is even appreciated).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Also, just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against SVS. I've never personally had reason to use any of their products but I've seen them on occasion and think their subwoofers are some of the top small-driver prefab subs out there. (Mostly because they, like Hsu but unlike most other prefab subwoofer makers, aren't shy about using appropriately-sized enclosures. But that's a different issue.) Nor, for that matter, did I "choose this thread/product," as you allege in an earlier post. A more thorough examination would reveal that I was not the first, second, or even third person to bemoan the badly-designed center channel on this thread. I simply amplified the argument of those who are correct on this issue and countered statements made by those who are wrong on this issue by posting independent published measurements showing beyond all doubt the real-world implications of incompetent center channel design. Even incompetent center channel design with a fancy tweeter.

I never said you were the first to post about deficiencies of a toppled MTM design. I asked why you chose this thread/product to be so enthusiastic (euphemism for nasty and/or rude) about the criticism. I'm assuming you have free will to choose the threads you post in, and your words. If you do not choose your own words (or threads for that matter), I'd like to know who does choose them because they write very well. In fact, if I wanted to come across as objective while being as nasty and insulting as possible, I'd envy the abilities of that author.

I also did not say you had a problem with SVS, but I did say your comments come across as disingenuous. For all I know toppled MTMs are just your pet peeve, and this thread caught you on a bad day. Good, bad or indifferent, however, any time I see someone attack something with such fervor, I find myself questioning their true intentions.

BTW, I think it's worth noting I have no beef with others who have criticisms of the toppled MTM (no matter how strong their opinions).

To boil down my point (I never claimed being succinct) it would be to let you know you come across as nasty, and it makes you less believable.

-Robb
post #140 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubeeef View Post

It is always good to learn more, infact it is widely agreed upon. So much so there is a place for all the discussions.....

Audio theory, Setup and Chat

I find it very funny that this discussion is chosen in this thread and not one of the more accepted and liked speaker threads like the Ascends. The point has been made over and over about MtM as well as the fact that within the lobes, life is great.

Enjoy learning more, I know very little of theory, just some of the practical issues such as "what I like".

I have to say that honestly I don't have anything at all against SVS and I didn't notice anyone singling out SVS for using the MTM design (since many, many other manufacturers use it also - which has been pointed out repeatedly). I see why some people are sensitive that this came-up in an SVS thread but I suspect any MTM center design will likely draw these same criticisms.

Ok, let's say that GM releases an SUV that is a gas guzzling pig (not at all hard to imagine from that company) that has a very high center of gravity (tips easy - again not hard to imagine) and has poor impact crash ratings. Would it be unreasonable to point out these design flaws in a discussion of the new truck just because other SUV's from other makers also have similar or the same flaws? No, of course not because in this hypothetical case GM is responsible for their design independant of what others are doing.

I promise you that if I see discussion of a MTM designed center speaker in any other speaker brand thread I'll be the first to raise that point. I honestly see no point at all for brand loyalty anyway - it's just one more product of many and I think anyone is a fool not to simply buy the best product they can find within their budget to do what they need.
post #141 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggunnell View Post

And I and others disagree with you in the price range many folks have for centers. In that price range, you are better off putting the 3-way crossover money and midrange driver money into better two way drivers and crossover components for seating withing the center comb lobe -- which is most residential applications.

That's the two most common assertions made on this thread, but there is interestingly enough never any objective evidence given for either them. Perhaps because all of the objective evidence points in the opposite direction. I don't know what else can be said or shown in this thread. I can only surmise that those making this assertion have never actually designed speakers themselves, because doing so rather quickly disabuses one of the notion that all one needs to do is pick "better drivers and crossover components" to get better sound. As, for that matter, should the previous legions of ill-conceived and bad-sounding speakers sold primarily on the notion that they were using fancy name-brand drivers at a low price point.

Moreover, there are plenty of competently designed center channels available at considerably lower prices. (I'm sure there are others, but the entry level offerings from Paradigm, KEF, and Infinity were obvious choices that were simple to find.) All three of those budget-minded centers will work better than a toppled MTM using the Acapella plasma-ion tweeter and B&C midwoofers, to say nothing of more plebeian components from ScanSpeak et al. And considering the obvious thought that went into those three inexpensive center channels (as well as the past performance of speakers from Paradigm, KEF, and Toole-era Harman International) it's a fair bet that the mains benefit from similarly superior engineering as well despite not using "name-brand" parts. (We'll ignore, for the moment, how so many of the advances found in modern drivers originated from companies such as Harman's JBL subsidiary and KEF.) Furthermore, who's to say that the name-brand but off-the-rack ScanSpeak tweeter is any better as part of a system than the respective bespoke tweeters designed and employed by Paradigm, KEF, and Harman? If anything, the evidence points in the favor of the bespoke designs being better suited to their respective systems, simply because they are all specifically tailored to those specific systems rather than being commodity parts. That's a stark contrast to this SVS system, which from the marketing materials appears to been have rigged around an attention-grabbing off-the-shelf part, an aesthetic, and a price point. Furthermore, in all three bespoke tweeters there is evidence that controlling tweeter directivity was at least on their designers' radar screens, whereas that is clearly not the case with the off-the-peg ScanSpeak tweeter on its 180deg horn. I submit that the inevitably rough midrange power response of a system that has an abrupt change in directivity from the top of the woofer's passband to the bottom of the tweeter's is going to be more of a sonic flaw at all SPL than the possibility of mildly higher distortion at some harmonics.

True, the cosmetics of the three center channels to which I linked, and the systems that go around them, may be less appealing to some than the KEF RDM series throwback aesthetic of the vaporware SVS set.

Now, to that "seating withing [sic] the center comb lobe" delusion that seems to be persisting. I suggest that anyone who does not yet understand that position to be irreconcilable with reality to read a basic acoustics book and come back and tell us what the percentage of direct to reflected sound one hears in the "sweet spot" in a typical home living room audio setup. We tend to listen in real rooms, after all, not anechoic chambers.

Also, as an aside "home theater" isn't the issue, let alone the false dichotomy you've set up between "small" and "large" home theaters. I don't find the rebroadcast of synthetic events to be at all a useful tool in subjectively judging audio fidelity. Outside of objective measurements (power response - of which on-axis frequency response is but a very small component - distortion spectra, and so on) the standard by which any speaker must be judged is the reproduction of well-recorded unamplified live music. (And a well-conceived and set-up multichannel system does a more convincing job of reproducing real music, to my ears, than a well-conceived and set-up 2-channel system.) To the extent one uses spoken word, use well-recorded files of people whose voices one knows well and not random movie soundtracks with lines spoken by performers one has usually never personally heard speak live and unamplified. Needless to say, it is not a test that is kind to any toppled MTM, no matter how much money was squandered on component parts.
post #142 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbroy View Post

Not true. Don't make a partial quote of me and then put words in my mouth.

If my interpretation is wrong, I'm genuinely curious as to what would constitute "'balanced' reporting" on this particular topic to you. "Balance," when it is used in modern American discourse as something other than a sneer - an example of the latter usage would be the slogan of Fox "News" - involves giving credence to the positions of two sides. There are cases when such an approach is appropriate, and cases where it is inappropriate. An example of the latter would be a case in which all the available objective evidence is clearly supporting one position and totally opposing the other. The suitability of the toppled-MTM for, well, anything is one of those cases, albeit one of the most trivial ones in world-historical terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbroy View Post

I never said you were the first to post about deficiencies of a toppled MTM design. I asked why you chose this thread/product to be so enthusiastic (euphemism for nasty and/or rude) about the criticism.

That's a fair question. The honest answer is that I don't read many threads in this section. Off-the-rack speakers by and large do not interest me. But I read this one. SVS does a good job with subs so I thought a speaker design by them might be interesting. After all, one of the other major subwoofer specialists, Hsu Research, has come up with some interesting and novel wider-bandwidth speakers that meet real needs: the Ventriloquist and their HB-1 bookshelf speaker. (But not the center, which as a toppled-MTM a priori sucks.) Rightly or wrongly, I see SVS's schtick as trodding in paths that Hsu has already cleared but sometimes doing a better job at the same basic thing in the process. Roughly analogous to Ralph Lauren's schtick of pillaging old Brooks Brothers (Polo) and Savile Row/Jermyn St. atelier (Purple Label) archives and coming up with things that are on occasion even better than the inspiration. However, upon opening this thread I saw a hopelessly flawed design papered over by a silly marketing hook. Posts defending it that showed clear evidence of one or all of the following are what ultimately "sucked me in" to this thread:

1) A fundamentally erroneous understanding of room acoustics and how loudspeakers interact with normal-sized rooms. Lots of people seem to have been led by various marketers to believe that what happens in anechoic chambers is also what happens in real world listening rooms, despite no published evidence for those claims and mounds of published evidence (in both the lay and peer-reviewed presses) suggesting otherwise. It's kind of like the "audiophile wire" thing, except that wires by and large cannot impair anything except one's fiances. By contrast, a flawed center channel simply ruins an entire audio system, just as surely as a drop of rancid milk ruins a perfectly brewed cup of coffee made from expertly roasted beans and the purest water.

2) Evidence in many posts of a lack of inclination and/or ability to listen critically, possibly coupled with simple lack of exposure to good center channel design (there aren't many of them out there, unfortunately). That's bad enough in and of itself, but all the worse when coupled with a willingness to pontificate as if inclination and/or ability to listen critically or experience listening to well-designed speakers are irrelevant in evaluating the potential performance of potential new loudspeakers.

3) Breathless hype based on a rather transparent marketing hook (that tweeter in a system at the claimed price) rather than any evidence of fundamentally sound design. (Not that I'm implying the 901 is as flawed a design as the toppled-MTM.) It would be as if Bose came out with a new version of the 901 that used 9 10" Tannoy Dual Concentric drivers deployed in the same sort of array as in the current 901. Despite the obviously superior quality and higher expense of the parts, is there any logical reason whatsoever to expect that the end result would be anything but atrocious? If anything, the superior parts might reveal flaws in the basic design that were hidden by driver flaws in the current model! If there was the same level of hype for, say, Dr. Earl Geddes' forthcoming new speaker designs from his Thai startup, I would understand that. Dr. Geddes is a noted expert on psychoacoustic issues, and his speaker designs use the fundamentally sound approach of controlled directivity combined with innovations such as new waveguide profiles and other tricks to minimize known sonic problems. Moreoever, he has established an enviable track record with his previous home speaker system, the GedLee Summa. But all this hype for yet another system its most important channel so abjectly crippled?
post #143 of 635
DS-21,

I used to own the Ascend 340SE, and I can tell you from personal experience that it is far from being a "hopeless" speaker. I have listened to many speakers from Infinity to Sonus Faber and for the price, the 340SE is a fantastic speaker. There are many rave reviews for Ascend speakers. Obviously you have never even heard it. To call it a "hopeless" speaker and imply that it sounds horrible, is in very poor taste.

Take a look at this post from Dave F. who used to be an engineer for M&K and is the designer of the CMT-340:

"The most critical of loudspeaker measurements is known as the sound power response. It is an extremely complicated measurement and can take a few hours to accomplish (also requiring the right equipment). It is computed by measuring the speaker's response at 144 different horizontal and vertical angles (5 degree increments). These measurements are then combined using a complex weighted average formula, thus resulting in the sound power response. These measurements take into account 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order reflections and are considered to be an accurate representation of how a loudspeaker actually sounds in a room. The sound power response of our CMT-340 center (when used as a center) very (and I mean VERY) closely matches the sound power response of a CBM-170 when used as a left/right Even closer in response then when a CBM-170 is used as center (on top of a TV)!

This is what the 340 center was designed for.. And we took designing and optimizing this center to far greater levels than simply using the same drivers. That would have been easy and we could have released it perhaps a year or two earlier, not to mention the cost savings involved by this far more common method, which I like to call the easy way out..."

Apparently you think that you are far smarter and superior to Dave and many other speaker designers. You have made your point. Why don't you end this crusade? You are not doing anyone any favors.
post #144 of 635
Please note I put the word "balanced" in quotes, and that, of course, you can come across however you like. I put the word "balanced" in quotes to point out you seem overly opinionated on the subject. Right or wrong, most people who are truly confident of their facts try to present them in an unbiased fashion, and you go out of your way not to do so, and that raises questions. I was pointing out the impression you make.

-Robb
post #145 of 635
BTW, look what happens when you place that Infinity 3-way center channel below your TV:

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/images/...infinity.8.jpg

source:

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/speaker...ty/index4.html
post #146 of 635
Well, I would love to hear these SVS models. I find them a bit "dumpy" looking, but I am pulling for good performance from them. SVS is a company I would like to see do well. My 20-39 CS-Plus is an excellent product, and I would hope they put out more excellent products.

Also...

Honestly, why crusade so hard against MTM centers? The Ascend 340SE is surely less deserving of a crusade than is the nightmare that is the >$400 Axiom VP150, right?

Personally, I use a set of Dynaudio Audience 42 two-way bookshelf speakers accross the front of my HT. They are all vertically oriented, since my LCD TV gave me enough room to do so, vs my old CRT. I avoid MTMs for centers, but I don't think they (of all the horrors of the "Audiophile" industry) deserve to be so overly picked on.
post #147 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by xcjago View Post

There are many rave reviews for Ascend speakers.

There are many rave reviews of Bose, too. That is not an argument.
post #148 of 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanb3478 View Post

There are many rave reviews of Bose, too. That is not an argument.

I think he is referring to professional reviews not user reviews.
post #149 of 635
There are plenty of good posters on this thread that are saying this guy is overgeneralizing. While there are plenty of bad MTM centers that his rants do apply to there are well designed ones that while they do have these lobing issues you'd have to be really far off-axis before you could hear it. Like sitting in front of the L or R or beyond them off-axis.
post #150 of 635
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › SVS MTS Family