The Official Salk Sound Owner's And Discussion Thread - Page 280

I think Jim and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. There are other factors more important than the type of tweeter that may make centers sound a little different than mains, as MonkFish has posted. I've never heard a problem with my mix of domes and a ribbon. But I do agree that the best place to start is just with a phantom center setting. That may be all you need until you can afford whatever type of center you want. For dedicated 5-channel playback, then you should match the centers and mains as closely as you can. Note that Jim isn't advocating matched tweeters because of a financial motivation--he probably makes the same amount on either, and the real cost to him would be a phantom center choice. So maybe he's right. I just haven't found it to be an issue in my setup.
Edited by Dennis Murphy - 3/17/13 at 3:15pm

If I wasn't doing 5-channel playback , there is a good chance I would of skipped the ribbon center.

I get listeners fatigue pretty quick , I think my last few sets of speakers caused this and the ribbons cleared this issue for me

I must say, this is a very disappointing post from you. A speaker manufacturer and a musician who doesn't understand the importance of matching the front soundstage? Disappointing is the only word I have.

I knew this statement was coming from someone

I think the Philharmonic and Soundscape floorstanders deal with a much bigger soundstage issue that a musician may be concerned so perhaps that is why a matching center is a lower priority.

Just stating my opinion. What may seem true in theory is not always true in practice.

I would bet that 3 Phil's or 3 Soundscapes across the front would be a SPECTACULAR front soundstage. 2 Phil's and a small MTM mounted well below the tweeter height of the Phils... not so much.

This system would not work for me:



I would rather use a phantom CC than that little MTM, (with all the problems MTM have with off-axis lobing), stuck in a cabinet, (with all the additional comb filtering from the early reflections off the cabinet), and with it mounted so far below the display.

I'm not that familiar with the Phil's. Is it possible to lay the bass box on it's side and set the MT box on top of it? That wouldn't be a "perfect" solution by any means, but it would be a much better starting point than that little MTM.

Craig

An identical CC is true in practice. You probably have a spare floorstander laying around. Try it yourself and you will immediately hear the difference.

Craig
Edit: Or take 3 of the MTM's, turn the tweeters 90 degrees and stand them up vertically on top of the bass boxes. That would be an awesome front stage.
Edited by craig john - 3/17/13 at 9:33am

I think that statement is arrogant. It may not be intentional, and it may be the kind of arrogance that comes with inexperience, but nonetheless it's arrogant.

Yes, its arrogant to lecture Dennis Murphy and Jim Salk about speaker design, especially after the poster specifically said he hadn't heard those speakers. I have no reason or desire to turn this into a slam fest, but I had to say this.

+1

I also have not had much of an issue mixing tweeters. Assuming the center is tonaly matched, a bigger issue for me is design (ie MTM vs WMTW). I've tried several MTM centers and none worked for us, probably because we typically are sitting off axis (this is also why a phantom center doesn't work for us). Switching to a center with a vertically aligned tweeter and mid works much better.

While it certainly would be "ideal" to have identical speakers across the front, it's simply not possible in my setup, and I imagine this is true for most of us. But this limitation doesn't mean you cannot get excellent results, even when mixing tweeters.

Maybe you missed it, but Jim basically agreed with Craig's main point even if Dennis didn't.

This is a very interesting discussion. I tried to find the post to quote and couldn't, but IIRC, Dave of Ascend has stated that even if clients purchase his dome tweeter towers, he still recommends getting the RAAL equiped center speaker in the series for improved dialog.

Doesnt sound like Dennis is disagreeing that the fact that all 3 identical front are ideal, but there are other factors that impede us from doing it. I would think that the raal ST would be better match with the raal front if they were positioned verticaly turning the tweeter 90 degreee but im not sure if thats is even possible.
Also, not everyone is picky in a movie set up, as long as the dialogue gets the job done, people are rather into the content of the movie then wondering if it was a truck or honda.

Inexperience? I've been on this forum since 2003. I installed my first Home Theater in 1986. I have been through every iteration of CC possible, including using the speakers in my 50" Pioneer RPTV as the CC. I've had horizontal CC's mounted above the display, below the display and behind the screen. The absolute best arrangement is a 3rd identical speaker to the L/R's mounted at the same height as the L/R's behind an AT screen. I have had that arrangement with the Atlantic Technology speakers I posted above. I've also heard a number of other theaters with 3 identical speakers across the front, (Klipsch THX U2's and M&K THX U2 speakers as well as Legacy Signatures.) The cohesiveness, integration and seamlessness of these front soundstages was far superior to any non-identical system I've ever heard, and I've heard MANY.

I am currently using a Triad Platinum CC that is horizontally aligned. It came with the (used) Triad Platinum system I bought. It's not a perfect CC and if I had had a choice, I would have gotten a 3rd LCR. However, another LCR is $7,500 new MSRP. At that price, I'm perfectly content with a CC that uses the same drivers in the same size box and the same crossovers as the LCR, and is mounted with the tweeters and mids at the same height as the L/R tweeter/mids. The *only* downside to my CC is some minor lobing from the horizontal arrangement of the woofers:



You may think it's arrogant, and I don't particularly care. However, it is certainly not inexperience. I just think it's truly unfortunate that someone with the reputation and authority as Dennis Murphy would give people such questionable advice.

Anyway, I've made my points and I will leave you now to dissect the pieces.

Craig
Edited by craig john - 3/17/13 at 12:05pm

I'm going to stick to my guns about your arrogance.

Dennis and Jim, in my opinion, are being nice. Not only is it a genuine part of who they really are, but they also have absolutely nothing to gain by responding to your comments other than by being nice.

I note that you denied the inexperienced part, but not the attitude. What in your experience as a professional HT installer qualifies you to comment on experienced and accomplished speaker designers?

Your vehement protests only confirm my belief that your experience may have led you to entirely wrong conclusions about what makes speakers sound good.

I'm not a professional installer. My "day job" is in the medical field. I've only installed my own systems and helped friends with theirs.

Jim's posts agreed with mine. It's only Dennis' stance that I find questionable.
That doesn't even deserve a response.

Oh my.

First of all, his being a musician has what to do with a matched soundstage? We aren't even talking about using the center for music, only movies.

Secondly, Dennis long understands the "importance" of a matched soundstage. He simply disagrees with it. With all the speakers that pass through his house I'm sure he's tried many different combinations, and obviously he thinks one of the cheaper options is just as valid and pleasing as its more expensive counterpart.

This quote comes off as very arrogant, and it's, imo, rather inappropriate. Dennis and I disagree on a number of topics, but we've always been friendly when talking about them. He's never told me that as an aspiring speaker designer it's sad that I don't know X or Y, nor have I said anything like that to him. We have mutual respect. There are many great people in this industry who disagree with each other. Not everyone agrees with Dr. Floyd Toole. It's not because they lack a fundamental understanding of his research, but that perhaps it has led them to a different conclusion. Not everyone agrees with Andrew Jones who doesnt have one design that doesnt include a concentric driver array, or a waveguide. Different stokes for different folks. One can disagree without being insulting.

OK guys. Time to return to the regularly scheduled program...

- Jim

Hmmm, maybe some 3 Stooges? They're pretty short or better yet some Laurel and Hardy.
Stay away from anything by David Lean though

Is that back on topic?

Sincere question\comment here; How does the tweeter do anything for dialog?
AFAIR, even a soprano, and I'm not talking about Tony, at their highest range doesn't come close to the usual xover point of a tweeter of any kind and I giving a bit here by going as low as 2kHz.
While a singing voice will have overtones\harmonics etc., the human speaking voice male and female, wouldn't even be close.

I mean wasn't that the whole point of not spending the extra bucks for a ribbon in a center channel speaker as the content for films is dialog heavy?
Edited by Milt99 - 3/17/13 at 3:50pm

Well obviously, you'd have to ask Dave that instead of me, but I've since found what I believe was the post I was referencing, or at least one very similar to it. FWIW, here is what Dave said:

I think this is an interesting discussion, as long as we keep it civil. My comment was based more on my background as an economist more than as a musician (?) or speaker designer. The question is whether the marginal benefit of the RAAL will always be greater than the marginal cost. I can see where it wouldn't for a lot of people, particularly if paying for the mains was a stretch in the first place. I do disagreee, however, with the notion that the spoken voice doesn't have overtones or content well into the tweeter range. If you were to cut off frequency response at 2 kHz, voices would sound like they do on a bad telephone, and you would be straining to understand. Besides overtones, consonant attacks and sibilance have a great deal of energy at 6 kHz, and then there are overtones above that. Anyhow, if you can easily afford it, by all means match a RAAL-based system with RAAL's across the front. If you can't, then I think you'll still enjoy da picture show.

Ok Dennis I'll buy your take on the human voice\dialog having information in tweeter's freq. range BUT, in reality how much difference do you think you could hear between a RAAL, Seas, Scan-Speak, Hiquphon or beryllium top of the line tweeter?

While I'm all about fidelity, while I may be able to identify a difference with dialog between the above drivers, I seriously doubt that I would be able to id them or pick one I liked better and then you have the whole cost benefit equation.

A few years ago the LCY ribbon blew out in my center HT2, I could tell the difference immediately but the 2 people watching the film with me never noticed.
I know that that is really not what we're talking about here but I'm still leaning to the opinion that any top of the line tweeter no matter what material or configuration can render accurate life-like human dialog.

If you thought my saying I was "disappointed" by your statements was not "civil", I apologize.
From your website:
"Dennis Murphy is an ardent supporter of classical music and has played viola for the Washintong Philharmonic Orchestra. $50 of every sale is donated to the WMPA."
http://philharmonicaudio.com/philharmonicaudio/philpages/components.html
Are you not a musician?
Maybe you could design a RAAL-based CC that doesn't have the big bass-bin. That would make it cheaper and Bass Management could be used to re-direct the bass to the sub(s). That would seem like a better all-around solution than using an unmatched tweeter.
Agreed:


If you had said this from the start, we would have had a lot less to "discuss."

Craig

I never said there was nothing to be gained from the RAAL. I just don't think it's an important issue for most people, particularly those who limited budgets. And I thihk you're making it sound like a perfectly matched center is a big deal. That's where we disagree (for movies, at least.)

It's a big deal for movies, and it's a bigger deal for multi-channel music. I just got The Nat King Cole Story SACD.
http://www.elusivedisc.com/NAT-KING-COLE-THE-NAT-KING-COLE-STORY-2SACD/productinfo/APSAM1613/
It's a 3-channel disc made from the original 3-channel master tapes. Nat King Cole's voice is positioned in the CC with other voices and instruments in the soundstage around him. If his voice and the rest of the soundstage came from a different speaker, and one that was positioned below the height of the L/R's, (like the one in that picture I posted), the whole soundstage would be totally wrong. There is a picture in the liner notes showing the studio where the re-mix was done. It shows 3 identical speakers placed at the same height across the front. That's how it should be reproduced.



I also tried the 2-channel, stereo track. The phantom image of Nat King Cole's voice is nowhere near as precise or focused as the image that comes from the "hard" center channel speaker on the 3-channel track.

If an identical, properly placed CC is important for a voice that is singing, why is it less important for a voice that is speaking, (i.e., in a movie?) Or, are movies just such a low priority for you that you don't care?

Craig

Craig, I don't think there is disagreement between you and Dennis over the "ideal" front soundstage setup. I'm not speaking for him, but I think he's saying that a degree or couple away from that ideal is not a big issue...especially if budget is a concern. I read his CC comments as a matter of grey, not black and white. And as an aside, I'd wager that, for one reason or another, a quite large majority of home theaters are not the ideal setup that you own and espouse.

Mud

I think you're going in circles a bit here craig. It seems we can all agree on the following:

1.) Ideally L,C,R are all the same speaker.
2.) If setup can't accommodate tower center, horizontal center channel with matching tweeter is ideal.
3.) If reaching the limit of budget, bypassing the cost of a ribbon tweeter upgrade in the center channel isn't the end of the world, especially if you aren't listening to 5 channel music.
Edited by repete66211 - 3/18/13 at 7:19am

here's my take on it....when they start panning the front soundstage on multichannel sacds I'll consider it . Otherwise I'm afraid my lowly, position compromised, tweeter challenged, Songcenter is doing just fine next to the ribbons. I guess ignorance is bliss.

My experience is even if you have three identical speakers accross the front (and I do), the center does not match because of it's position in the room. You can make the right and left speakers symetrical to the side and rear walls but the center will be different because of its position. My experience does not take into account inwalls.

It appears to me that the three speakers that show the mixing of the SACD are being used at a very near field monitoring distance where the effect of the room is greatly reduced. I think it is probably the correct way to mix but i would bet if you took those same three speakers and sat further back in a normal home setting the center would take on a different sound than then original mix. Just thinking out loud.

Don't get me wrong, I am for three identical front speakers....I just don' think there are many "perfect" solutions, just some better than others.
Edited by Randy Bessinger - 3/18/13 at 8:09am