SVS MTS Family - Page 2

There are several issues with horizontal center speaker and not just the MTM designs.

Horizontal speakers do not disperse sound well in the horizontal plane, which is exactly where you'd like your center speaker to disperse sound; so that it provides a wide "sweet spot" and so that it doesn't disperse sound toward the floor and ceiling.

Additionally, the MTM designs suffer from "lobing".

There are several horizontal designs that attempt to alleviate these problems; both the dispersion issue and the lobing issue. But none of these, except, perhaps, the coincidental array designs, completely eliminate the issues. Even the horizontally-oriented coincidental array designs do not disperse sound as ideally as a vertically-oriented incidental array speaker would.

Now, all that said, I DO think that we often make too big an issue about the problems with horizontal centers. As pointed out, most people, mainly due to spatial concerns, have no other choice than to use the matching horizontal center that is offered by their speaker's manufacturer.

I DO try to recommend to people who are at the point of purchasing an entire, new speaker system that they not only TRY and use a vertically-oriented center, but that they TRY to use identical speakers all the way around.

Admittedly, I don't practice what I preach, but if I were to someday replace all of my speakers, I would try to buy all matching speakers.

No, it's "mid-woofer".

Sorry , did not know that. I will correct it.

Brandon

Look at Aerial Acoustics and Triad'ss upper range, also good designs.

I think the jury is out on this one too. For smaller rooms it may work.

Those speakers are, mainly, designed to be vertically-oriented. "Topple" one for center use, and you encounter the dispersion and lobing issues.



Do you mean a vertically-oriented one or a horizontally-oriented one?

Do you have an earlier example of a speaker with a contemporary painted/black finish set off by sculpted contrasting wooden or painted cheekpanels that came out before the KEF RDM series (let's say ca. 1995)?

Not saying that such a thing doesn't exist, only that I don't know of it.

Exactly. If you are able to push the crossover point low enough (which the AirCirc is more capable of than almost any other tweeter), then lobing becomes a non-issue in a normal seating arrangement. To assume that all MTMs are problematic for a typical environment is silly. That is quite a tweeter for the price point. I'm amazed they can pull it off.

Can you name one "good" horizontal MTM center speaker?

Assuming an MTM standing properly. Put it on its side, and everything goes to pot. Might as well put it on its back. It would probably sound better that way.


To assume in the face of copious measured and subjective evidence to the contrary that any toppled-MTM will ever be anything more than a miserable sonic failure is what's truly silly.

(What might be "silly" is to assume that the average "audiophile" has a good idea of what constitutes good sound that s/he will notice an improvement between a competently-designed center and a toppled MTM.)


Alas, we've all heard speakers based upon the premise "look at the expensive name-brand drivers we're able to offer you for so little money." The picture is not pretty, or encouraging.

To read more on MTM design for centers click this link. It is to an old post from a few years back by the designer at Ascend Acoustics regarding MTM characteristics. Basically, in a properly designed MTM you'd have to be sitting beyond one of the mains, causing other issues, before lobing is audible.

Sure, but I have not had as much experience with center channels as I have mains, but the center I used to use...the Ascend CMT-340SEc, is pretty d*mn good.

I had a little bit of time with the Usher V-603, and that seemed to be fine too between the mains which are about 7 feet apart.

I am also going to assume that the new SVS will do fine too, and others.

While I understand horizontal MTM is not the optimum for wide dispersion, within a given application, it can be excellent.

It's a marketing/propagnda document with the purpose of providing a post facto justification for an incompetent product. Its claims would be easily countered by measuring those particular speakers and finding that they measure poorly not just beyond 20deg off axis but everywhere. It also ignores the crucial issue of floor/ceiling reflections, which will be everywhere due to the wide open vertical dispersion of an incompetently-designed center.

Note that the only people defending crappy center designs here are...people who admit they've never used a competently-designed center channel!

Understandable, but you are making assumptions as well.

If you sit outside the center lob, you are likely outside the mains as well and will have other issues that are probably more audible than lobing.

Although still not as ideal as a vertically-oriented center, this is an example of how simple it is for a manufacturer to, at least, address the problem.................. if they want to.

http://www.mksound.com/center750thx.htm

Nousaine's article is a very good one, but doesn't address the two of the things that have been brought up in this thread.....the size of the center lobe, and the crossover point of the tweeter. IMO, you can't lump all MTM's into one crap pile.

Do you know what dictates the size of the center lobe?

(We should probably start another thread. No reason to drag a single manufacturer through the mud. )

Not all things, but the tweeter crossover point is one(as Lindahl pointed out), and distance between the drivers is another.

It would be great if David sent the CMT-340c to UltimateAV.com for review. Then we could see what the off-axis measurements look like.

As for his article, it is naturally biased.

Here is a thread over at SVS that Tom has responded to, taking about the center channel issue.

http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com/...hread.id=77066

Also naturally (and understandably) biased.

Has the guy ever put anyone together with a subwoofer purchase? I think he is very honest. And doesn't make claims, that his product can't stand by.

I never said he was dishonest. Or misleading. His discussion is frank.

But is it not understandable that a response from a company's owner (both David and Tom) regarding a criticism of his product might be biased?




I'll repeat something I've already said in this thread:

IMO, it is a non-issue if your seating positions are in the center lobe......and yes, some center lobs are smaller than others.

If you are not in the center lob of a "good" design, chances are you are outside your mains too....and that is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Do you think there are legitimate criticisms of three way designs?

It's pretty simple really. Some people simply believe that all three way center channel speakers are better than an MTM no matter what. There are no other factors that come into account except that these incompetent designers are trying to save money by offering an inferior product. =p

All you are doing with a 3 way center is trading horizontal lobing with vertical lobing.

Some of you read one article that does not discuss different MTM designs and take it as the Gospel. You guys are just as biased as you are accusing the manufacturers of being.

Miles- The M&K you gave as an example was quite likely designed by the guy at Ascend who later designed the 340.

Well I can't wait till the first reviews come out, I couldn't give a care about the mtm design, I don't have a perfect listening enviornment anyway. There are so many factors that add and detract from a listening enviornment, from the amps to the floor and ceiling, to the volumn of the room, the length and width of the room as well.
I have tinnitis, which blows, it is not disabling, but colors my view of what I hear. I used to be able to listen critically (my first real speakers were Kef 105.2's in 1986) but now go for general effect and imaging etc...
I wonder how these will stack up against some other ID towers like the mini strata.
No matter what, even if you don't like them, we all benefit from the battle for market share. Kind of a more, better, faster, cheaper and these look they might up the ante for some manufacturers, and we all benefit from that.

I agree 100% there.

I'm sure David is biased, but if you've read any of his posts regarding design process you also know that he is a freak of nature. In a good way. If it is so obvious that MTM sucks, and so easy to "do it right", why would a real world speaker designer (not just a guy on the net) not do it the right way? And don't tell me that David is just catering to the ignorant masses to sell speakers. That is clearly not his approach. Just doesn't add up.

Real world residential applications break down into two groups: home theater and Home Theater. Most centers are sold for use in living room home theaters -- usually the listening position is occupied by one or two people. Under these conditions, assuming normal care is taken with driver spacing and x-o design, a horizontal MTM works great, even with a relatively directional tweeter.
Folks who have built a real Home Theater, with multiple seating (assuming it's actually occupied -- many of these folks end up with one or two people sitting in the center), have a genuine need for concern with dispersion, speech intelligibility, etc. -- as in any small theater.

This is not to say that adding a center midrange to an MTM is not a good idea -- but it is expensive, and in my opinion, unecessary for most residential installs. I'd much rather spend the money on better tweeter, woofer, and two-way x-o components, as SVS has done.