Can I Place Front Speaker Horizontally?
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
There are many factors that affect sound quality. In your case the room is the limiting factor. It is simply too narrow to support a proper soundstage. Before one can take advantages of better speakers one must be able to take the room out of the equation as much as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avliner /forum/post/14639730
Well,
my LCR fronts are layed down on a rack, at 33" high (as you can see by the picture posted above) and honestly they sound just owesome to me, family & friends though.
Furthermore, before purchasing the SCS's I used to have another LCR front array, horizontally placed as well ( JBL S38II's ). Perhaps I got used to the LCR stange breed sounding, but so far, no complaints at all![]()
Regards, Chuck
There are many factors that affect sound quality. In your case the room is the limiting factor. It is simply too narrow to support a proper soundstage. Before one can take advantages of better speakers one must be able to take the room out of the equation as much as possible.
Joined
·
12,858 Posts
Often, I think posters on this forum will post about their systems, and the compromises they've made, and then express the opinion that "It sounds great.", or "I love it." While those systems may sound fine to their owners, they are subjective opinions. To give advice based on one's subjective opinion is a disservice to the person asking the question. It would be better to offer the "ideal" solution, then describe the effects of the compromises that are less than ideal. I think this is the type of advice Kal usually gives, and it is more helpful than, "I laid my speakers on their sides and it sounds great."
So, let's start out with the "ideal". The very best front speaker arrangement is 3 identical speakers across the front soundstage, evenly aligned horizontally and placed behind an acoustically transparent screen. Anything other than that is a compromise of one sort or another. (Some would argue that an acoustically transparent screen is a "compromise" in and of itself, and it is hard to disagree with that. However, with the new woven screens, the acoustic transparency is greatly enhanced, and the addition of an Audyssey EQ makes it a complete non-issue.)
It is a compromise to place the L/R's on either side of the screen with the center below, (or above) the screen. The CC will sonically image above or below the video image. Also, "pans" will change "height as they move between the speakers. Even Kal's arrangement with 3 vertically aligned speakers below the screen is a compromise for AV, (although it probably is not for audio-only applications.) Using a speaker in an orientation that it was not designed for is a compromise. Laying most speakers designed for vertical alignment on their sides is a significant compromise. The dispersion characteristics will be changed. This will be more significant with some speakers than with others; however, it will be an issue for almost all speakers designed to be vertically oriented.
Then there is the issue with lobing of an MTM, (midrange-tweeter-midrange, or the D'Appolito array.) These types of speakers exhibit comb filtering off-axis of the tweeter. This lobing will occur above and below the front axis when the speaker is aligned vertically. Since these speakers are meant to be placed with the tweeter at ear level, the lobing is not "heard" because it is above and below ear level. However, if you place three of these speakers horizontally across the front soundstage, every listening position will be off-axis of at least 2 of the front speakers. Then lobing does come into play. Here is an article that describes the audible effects of lobing:
http://www.audioholics.com/education...peaker-designs
This problem affects many horizontally oriented speakers, even if they are specifically designed as "Center Channel" speakers. If both the midrange drivers are reproducing the same sound, they will reinforce and cancel each other at various point off-axis.
Some manufacturers have gotten around this problem using ingenious techniques. Klipsch uses their "Tapered Array", which crosses out one midrange speaker before the lobing occurs. Other manufacturers offset the tweeter and mount the mids close together to reduce lobing. Some manufacturers use a 3-way design with the tweeter and midrange stacked in the middle, and the mid-woofers on the sides. KEF uses a coaxial midrange/tweeter with mid-woofers. All these designs attempt to allow the mid-woofers to be crossed over below the point of lobing. Still, since crossovers are filters with slopes, there will still be some interaction between the outside midrange/woofers, even if it's at a reduced level.
Overall, if one cannot achieve the "ideal" of 3 identical speakers behind an acoustically transparent screen, (and obviously many or most cannot), then one should simply be aware of the compromises involved. If those compromises are acceptable, then one should not look back.
Personally, I have lived with many compromised systems in the past. I went from using the speakers in my RPTV cabinet as the CC, to placing a horizontal CC on top of the RPTV cabinet, to placing a horizontal CC below a projection screen, to placing an identical speaker behind an acoustically transparent screen. Each system sounded good and each upgrade was a little less of a compromise. However, it wasn't "ideal" until the last upgrade. Before, I could always tell that the imaging wasn't quite right, the timber-match wasn't quite right and the off-axis response wasn't quite right. Now, with 3 identical speakers behind the screen, the sound locks up perfectly with the video image and the timber-match is near perfect. I can sit anywhere in the front row and the front soundstage is virtually the same, (I've also EQ'd with Audyssey MultEQ XT.)
Bottom line, one can make most any system sound "pretty good", "good" or even "great". However, there is only one "ideal" system and anything less is a compromise.
Craig
So, let's start out with the "ideal". The very best front speaker arrangement is 3 identical speakers across the front soundstage, evenly aligned horizontally and placed behind an acoustically transparent screen. Anything other than that is a compromise of one sort or another. (Some would argue that an acoustically transparent screen is a "compromise" in and of itself, and it is hard to disagree with that. However, with the new woven screens, the acoustic transparency is greatly enhanced, and the addition of an Audyssey EQ makes it a complete non-issue.)
It is a compromise to place the L/R's on either side of the screen with the center below, (or above) the screen. The CC will sonically image above or below the video image. Also, "pans" will change "height as they move between the speakers. Even Kal's arrangement with 3 vertically aligned speakers below the screen is a compromise for AV, (although it probably is not for audio-only applications.) Using a speaker in an orientation that it was not designed for is a compromise. Laying most speakers designed for vertical alignment on their sides is a significant compromise. The dispersion characteristics will be changed. This will be more significant with some speakers than with others; however, it will be an issue for almost all speakers designed to be vertically oriented.
Then there is the issue with lobing of an MTM, (midrange-tweeter-midrange, or the D'Appolito array.) These types of speakers exhibit comb filtering off-axis of the tweeter. This lobing will occur above and below the front axis when the speaker is aligned vertically. Since these speakers are meant to be placed with the tweeter at ear level, the lobing is not "heard" because it is above and below ear level. However, if you place three of these speakers horizontally across the front soundstage, every listening position will be off-axis of at least 2 of the front speakers. Then lobing does come into play. Here is an article that describes the audible effects of lobing:
http://www.audioholics.com/education...peaker-designs
This problem affects many horizontally oriented speakers, even if they are specifically designed as "Center Channel" speakers. If both the midrange drivers are reproducing the same sound, they will reinforce and cancel each other at various point off-axis.
Some manufacturers have gotten around this problem using ingenious techniques. Klipsch uses their "Tapered Array", which crosses out one midrange speaker before the lobing occurs. Other manufacturers offset the tweeter and mount the mids close together to reduce lobing. Some manufacturers use a 3-way design with the tweeter and midrange stacked in the middle, and the mid-woofers on the sides. KEF uses a coaxial midrange/tweeter with mid-woofers. All these designs attempt to allow the mid-woofers to be crossed over below the point of lobing. Still, since crossovers are filters with slopes, there will still be some interaction between the outside midrange/woofers, even if it's at a reduced level.
Overall, if one cannot achieve the "ideal" of 3 identical speakers behind an acoustically transparent screen, (and obviously many or most cannot), then one should simply be aware of the compromises involved. If those compromises are acceptable, then one should not look back.
Personally, I have lived with many compromised systems in the past. I went from using the speakers in my RPTV cabinet as the CC, to placing a horizontal CC on top of the RPTV cabinet, to placing a horizontal CC below a projection screen, to placing an identical speaker behind an acoustically transparent screen. Each system sounded good and each upgrade was a little less of a compromise. However, it wasn't "ideal" until the last upgrade. Before, I could always tell that the imaging wasn't quite right, the timber-match wasn't quite right and the off-axis response wasn't quite right. Now, with 3 identical speakers behind the screen, the sound locks up perfectly with the video image and the timber-match is near perfect. I can sit anywhere in the front row and the front soundstage is virtually the same, (I've also EQ'd with Audyssey MultEQ XT.)
Bottom line, one can make most any system sound "pretty good", "good" or even "great". However, there is only one "ideal" system and anything less is a compromise.
Craig
Joined
·
648 Posts
I couldn't disagree more.
Whether the advice is given "subjectively" or "objectively," the point of this forum, I believe, is to offer advice. Period. Whatever kind it might be ...
Home theater is often full of compromises. The majority are not able to afford or achieve the "ideal" setup.
Could I have built the perfect home theater? Absolutely not with the space I had to use.
Is my soundstage perfect? No, not by a mile.
Am I happy with my setup? You betcha. Is there anything wrong with saying that? I don't think so.
![]()
So, to the OP, try it and if you like it, don't worry about it. But if you have "money to burn," do what Craig John recommends.
![]()
I wish I could have, but I couldn't, so I didn't.
![]()
I couldn't disagree more.
Whether the advice is given "subjectively" or "objectively," the point of this forum, I believe, is to offer advice. Period. Whatever kind it might be ...
Home theater is often full of compromises. The majority are not able to afford or achieve the "ideal" setup.
Could I have built the perfect home theater? Absolutely not with the space I had to use.
Is my soundstage perfect? No, not by a mile.
Am I happy with my setup? You betcha. Is there anything wrong with saying that? I don't think so.
So, to the OP, try it and if you like it, don't worry about it. But if you have "money to burn," do what Craig John recommends.
Joined
·
12,858 Posts
You're entitled to your opinion.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't think it's appropriate to encourage someone to do things that are less than optimal. If you do a search for my username and look at my posts, you'll find that I often tell people what is "ideal" or "optimal" and let them make their own choices from there. When people ask about compromised surround speaker placements, I point them to the Dolby website and show them the "ideal" surround placement. When people ask about in-wall/in-ceiling speakers, I point them to the CE-Pro article about the compromises involved in in-wall/in-ceiling speakers.
True, but that doesn't mean we should encourage them to pursue less than "ideal" setups.
I was at CEDIA last week. I visited at least 10 demo rooms. NONE of the high-end demo rooms at CEDIA had the speakers behind the screen. Even the Runco room, which had a mega-dollar Krell speaker and electronics system (~$300K by my estimate) and a quarter million $$$ video projection system, including a Screen Research acoustically transparent screen, had the speakers sitting on the floor below the acoustically transparent screen.
![]()
![]()
![]()
The Integra room had a set of Atlantic Technology THX Ultra2 speakers. The horizontal CC was underneath the screen. (I have these same speakers at home except with the horizontal CC replaced by a 3rd L/R.) They were playing a song by Ladysmith Black Mambazo. The first two voices came from the L and R speakers, and they imaged perfectly. The 3rd voice, the lead singer, came from the CC which was mounted below the screen and lower than the other two. It was so obvious that the CC was mounted below the horizontal plane of the other two speakers that I was immediately distracted by it and never got past it the rest of the demo. Yet, the guy sitting next to me didn't even notice it until the demo was over. When I pointed it out to him, he recalled the same effect.
CEDIA is a show for "installers and "designers". It is because these people are not encouraged to pursue the "ideal", even in mega-dollar demo rooms, that we have so many marginal installers. I was in a house last year valued at $1.8M during the local Parade of Homes. The HT was in a large room above the 5-car garage and the HT installer was there showing off his design. This room could have been an outstanding HT. The installer had installed 2 seats up front, one in front of the left speaker and one in front of the right speaker, separated by an "aisle". There was also a riser in the back right corner of the room, (that's right... in the corner!), with two more seats. When I asked him which seat was supposed to be the "sweet spot", he said, "When I'm finished with a theater, every seat is a sweet spot". I didn't stay for a demo; I just left.
My brother has an HT designed and installed by an "installer" in Phoenix. It's junk... and he paid at least 3x what I did for mine. He ended up with in-walls without enclosures, (the CC is mounted below the display and the L/R's on the left and right), a sub in a cutout alcove in the wall, a Pioneer plasma that was outdated when he got it, and a DirecTV dish that has never worked right. His Pronto remote was "programmed" by the installer, but my brother was never instructed in how to use it or reprogram it. It's now in a drawer and my brother uses 6 different remotes to control his system. he's disappointed with the picture quality, the sound quality and the usability of the system.
If you're happy with it, that's fine. You seem to be aware of the compromises you've made. If they don't bother you, or at least you can accept them, then don't look back. However, it's less than "ideal" to tell someone else to accept those same compromises.
BTW, it's not about how much you spent on your system, or how much I spent on mine. I looked at the link in your sig to your room and system, and it's very nice, in some ways nicer than mine. I certainly doubt that I spent any more on my system than you spent on yours. (The red velvet curtains in my room are *behind* my screen, instead of in front of it.
![]()
) My screen was $1,300 from SeymourAV, and it's a motorized, drop down screen. ( www.seymourav.com ) It allowed me to get my speakers behind the screen. As soon as I put them back there, it became immediately obvious how much better this arrangement is.
Also, Kal was the one who pointed out to me the lobing issue with my then-horizontal CC, a Klipsch RC-7. This was about a year and a half ago, in another discussion about center channel speaker designs. I had never heard the lobing issue in my room, and at first I didn't believe it existed (mostly because I always sat in the "sweet spot" where lobing is not an issue). Then Kal told me what to listen for, and I sat off-axis of my CC, and sure enough, I heard it.
Going forward, when people ask questions on this forum, I will continue to point out, (as does Kal), what the "ideal" arrangement is, and let them decide for themselves from there. And when other people suggest that something less than ideal is acceptable, I will point out again what is "ideal".
Craig
You're entitled to your opinion.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't think it's appropriate to encourage someone to do things that are less than optimal. If you do a search for my username and look at my posts, you'll find that I often tell people what is "ideal" or "optimal" and let them make their own choices from there. When people ask about compromised surround speaker placements, I point them to the Dolby website and show them the "ideal" surround placement. When people ask about in-wall/in-ceiling speakers, I point them to the CE-Pro article about the compromises involved in in-wall/in-ceiling speakers.
True, but that doesn't mean we should encourage them to pursue less than "ideal" setups.
I was at CEDIA last week. I visited at least 10 demo rooms. NONE of the high-end demo rooms at CEDIA had the speakers behind the screen. Even the Runco room, which had a mega-dollar Krell speaker and electronics system (~$300K by my estimate) and a quarter million $$$ video projection system, including a Screen Research acoustically transparent screen, had the speakers sitting on the floor below the acoustically transparent screen.
CEDIA is a show for "installers and "designers". It is because these people are not encouraged to pursue the "ideal", even in mega-dollar demo rooms, that we have so many marginal installers. I was in a house last year valued at $1.8M during the local Parade of Homes. The HT was in a large room above the 5-car garage and the HT installer was there showing off his design. This room could have been an outstanding HT. The installer had installed 2 seats up front, one in front of the left speaker and one in front of the right speaker, separated by an "aisle". There was also a riser in the back right corner of the room, (that's right... in the corner!), with two more seats. When I asked him which seat was supposed to be the "sweet spot", he said, "When I'm finished with a theater, every seat is a sweet spot". I didn't stay for a demo; I just left.
My brother has an HT designed and installed by an "installer" in Phoenix. It's junk... and he paid at least 3x what I did for mine. He ended up with in-walls without enclosures, (the CC is mounted below the display and the L/R's on the left and right), a sub in a cutout alcove in the wall, a Pioneer plasma that was outdated when he got it, and a DirecTV dish that has never worked right. His Pronto remote was "programmed" by the installer, but my brother was never instructed in how to use it or reprogram it. It's now in a drawer and my brother uses 6 different remotes to control his system. he's disappointed with the picture quality, the sound quality and the usability of the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Reborn /forum/post/14650783
Could I have built the perfect home theater? Absolutely not with the space I had to use.
Is my soundstage perfect? No, not by a mile.
Am I happy with my setup? You betcha. Is there anything wrong with saying that? I don't think so.![]()
So, to the OP, try it and if you like it, don't worry about it. But if you have "money to burn," do what Craig John recommends.I wish I could have, but I couldn't, so I didn't.![]()
![]()
If you're happy with it, that's fine. You seem to be aware of the compromises you've made. If they don't bother you, or at least you can accept them, then don't look back. However, it's less than "ideal" to tell someone else to accept those same compromises.
BTW, it's not about how much you spent on your system, or how much I spent on mine. I looked at the link in your sig to your room and system, and it's very nice, in some ways nicer than mine. I certainly doubt that I spent any more on my system than you spent on yours. (The red velvet curtains in my room are *behind* my screen, instead of in front of it.
Also, Kal was the one who pointed out to me the lobing issue with my then-horizontal CC, a Klipsch RC-7. This was about a year and a half ago, in another discussion about center channel speaker designs. I had never heard the lobing issue in my room, and at first I didn't believe it existed (mostly because I always sat in the "sweet spot" where lobing is not an issue). Then Kal told me what to listen for, and I sat off-axis of my CC, and sure enough, I heard it.
Going forward, when people ask questions on this forum, I will continue to point out, (as does Kal), what the "ideal" arrangement is, and let them decide for themselves from there. And when other people suggest that something less than ideal is acceptable, I will point out again what is "ideal".
Craig
Joined
·
648 Posts
Craig, I think we'll just have to agree that we disagree with each other on this one.
![]()
Obviously it's not ideal to have the speakers horziontally. On that we can agree.
On the other hand, my reply to the OP that my setup sounds fine to me is not irrelevant or "a disservice" as you seem to suggest. At no point did I say this was ideal ... of course it's not. Offering my first-hand experience (with the exact same issue that he's facing) is a disservice?!?! If so, then it seems that I should not be contributing my opinion to this topic, so I'll gladly sign off and you'll hear no more from me on this one.
Anyways, no worries.
Good luck, supercop.
Craig, I think we'll just have to agree that we disagree with each other on this one.
Obviously it's not ideal to have the speakers horziontally. On that we can agree.
On the other hand, my reply to the OP that my setup sounds fine to me is not irrelevant or "a disservice" as you seem to suggest. At no point did I say this was ideal ... of course it's not. Offering my first-hand experience (with the exact same issue that he's facing) is a disservice?!?! If so, then it seems that I should not be contributing my opinion to this topic, so I'll gladly sign off and you'll hear no more from me on this one.
Anyways, no worries.
Good luck, supercop.
supercop -- Thanks for starting this thread. It has provided some very interesting reading.
craig john -- Thank you for the very informative posts. You have put some very important information into your post #24. It provides important information on the trade-offs from "ideal" into one concise mini-article. The link to the Audioholics article was good, too. It really makes clear why my existing CC is not working very well.
I am in the process of upgrading my center channel speaker. The information on "lobing" and the compromises that are inherent in a MTM CC are very timely. I am going to re-examine the choices I have for my "less than ideal" system to make it closer to "ideal".
craig john -- Thank you for the very informative posts. You have put some very important information into your post #24. It provides important information on the trade-offs from "ideal" into one concise mini-article. The link to the Audioholics article was good, too. It really makes clear why my existing CC is not working very well.
I am in the process of upgrading my center channel speaker. The information on "lobing" and the compromises that are inherent in a MTM CC are very timely. I am going to re-examine the choices I have for my "less than ideal" system to make it closer to "ideal".
Joined
·
12,858 Posts
CT,
![]()
Craig
PS. Here's another article about lobing in horizontally arranged CC's:
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index...Id=28&blogId=1
CT,
Craig
PS. Here's another article about lobing in horizontally arranged CC's:
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index...Id=28&blogId=1
Actually typical horizontal MTM center channel speakers such as those pictured are not designed to lay on their side...at least not acoustically. They are cosmetically and practically intended to lay on their sides despite the acoustic disadvantages.
There is a fix for the lobing problem of horizontal arrays but it requires very unique crossover transfer functions that can not be done practically using analog (especially passive) crossovers. This crossover design approach developed by Ulrich Horbach and Don Keele for Harmon International can very successfully control the dispersion pattern across the array through the crossover frequencies with no lobing issues. In fact, it's amazing how well it works and how much sense it makes mathematically. What's really amazing is why no one thought of it before. It absolutely works perfectly! I'm planning a horizontal W-LM-HM-T-HM-LM-W horizontal array that will be over six feet wide for my HT using this crossover technology. I will locate it behind the screen.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14199
Now, from the practical standpoint...lobing at the crossover frequencies causes narrow band notches in the frequency response. Depending on where you sit in the room, you will or will not fall into one or more of these notches in the direct sound. Because it will be filled in by reflected sound it will not be as noticeable as you might expect. So, if you are not an overly critical listener, you could put typical two or three way speakers intended to be vertical on their side and not notice any major problems. If you do comparisons going back and fourth between vertical and horizontal you probably will notice the difference but your listening position will have a large effect on how significant it will be. Especially if you are sitting on center, you're probably going to be fine with them on the side. Personally I don't like having them sitting low such as below the screen but if it's not a problem for you then having them on the side should be ok.
Monte
Actually typical horizontal MTM center channel speakers such as those pictured are not designed to lay on their side...at least not acoustically. They are cosmetically and practically intended to lay on their sides despite the acoustic disadvantages.
There is a fix for the lobing problem of horizontal arrays but it requires very unique crossover transfer functions that can not be done practically using analog (especially passive) crossovers. This crossover design approach developed by Ulrich Horbach and Don Keele for Harmon International can very successfully control the dispersion pattern across the array through the crossover frequencies with no lobing issues. In fact, it's amazing how well it works and how much sense it makes mathematically. What's really amazing is why no one thought of it before. It absolutely works perfectly! I'm planning a horizontal W-LM-HM-T-HM-LM-W horizontal array that will be over six feet wide for my HT using this crossover technology. I will locate it behind the screen.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14199
Now, from the practical standpoint...lobing at the crossover frequencies causes narrow band notches in the frequency response. Depending on where you sit in the room, you will or will not fall into one or more of these notches in the direct sound. Because it will be filled in by reflected sound it will not be as noticeable as you might expect. So, if you are not an overly critical listener, you could put typical two or three way speakers intended to be vertical on their side and not notice any major problems. If you do comparisons going back and fourth between vertical and horizontal you probably will notice the difference but your listening position will have a large effect on how significant it will be. Especially if you are sitting on center, you're probably going to be fine with them on the side. Personally I don't like having them sitting low such as below the screen but if it's not a problem for you then having them on the side should be ok.
Monte
Joined
·
813 Posts
I just went ahead and experimented with this using my Polk RTi8 speakers.
They stand a foot too talk for my taste vis-a-vis of my projection screen.
Laying them horizontally works fine based on the listening distance.
At closer distance, it just does not work.
When I had them laid on a stool standing 33", I needed to be away at least 15 feet for it to work.
Laid on the bare carpet, I needed to be 25+ feet.
They stand a foot too talk for my taste vis-a-vis of my projection screen.
Laying them horizontally works fine based on the listening distance.
At closer distance, it just does not work.
When I had them laid on a stool standing 33", I needed to be away at least 15 feet for it to work.
Laid on the bare carpet, I needed to be 25+ feet.
Joined
·
2,250 Posts
This is a great paragraph. Whether I succeed or not in doing the above (and I question myself because I'm still on a fast learning curve), I do try my best with the knowledge set I have at the time. I'm going to use this moment to compare this with an experience I've had in music to support this philosophy, later in this post. A comparison I've been wanting to make for a long time, but now find the opportunity.
I do not have three uprights, on the same plane, for my stage. But, I think I recommend it as often as anyone else as of late. The point is to always educate as well as one can, so that any consumer at least knows what those compromises are. Because if one does not know of any such compromise, it will not and cannot ever be improved outside of pure luck or coincidence. Or worse yet, the consumer simply missed the immediate opportunity to do it the ideal way right from the start!
So for my unrelated example. I had an instrumental teacher. He tours the world and is top-notch at what he does. In his lessons, he would demand of his students things that he himself could not do. And every once in a while the student could do what he could not! Rarely, but it just goes to show we all have our own sets of capabilities. See, with many instrumentalists, the technical-musical choices are so often compromised to make it easier, but at the cost of the music itself.
For instance, if you have, say, a 3 voice fugue to perform, it would be surely nice to sustain all voices when called for. However, for many instruments its either impossible or extremely difficult to always do so. But, if you never knew of these particular examples of compromise, one could never improve them when the capability to be able to do so was finally achieved.
And the crazy thing is that capabilities do improve to make such things possible. So, some students will alter their performance with these goals in mind, and other more ignorant students continue with the exact same compromises,thinking, "oh, its good enough ain't it . . .", or perhaps worse yet, simply do not know any better.
So for AV, one of the more severe compromises I make among many lesser ones is indeed the inclusion of a horiz MTM below my screen. I in fact hate the idea of buying into a compromised design so much that it took me over a half a year to finally buy myself the matching center! I even played with the ideas of WTMW, top mounted tweeter, and very particularly the coincidental (as they are shorter), but I just am unwilling to buy a whole new speaker set at this moment. At least I know what compromise I am making so that when the capability to improve is there, I know exactly what to do.
I really wish I knew of this compromise when I first bought this speaker set.
To not educate someone from the beginning to the best of your knowledge is, well, just poor practice. Because they just might start off on the wrong foot, when the ideal might've been easily achieved right at the start. You never know.
Maybe a set of 3 towers for me in the future... anyone have a crystal ball?
![]()
Thanks for your post craig john. Post of the month, IMO.
![]()
-jostenmeat
+1
This is a great paragraph. Whether I succeed or not in doing the above (and I question myself because I'm still on a fast learning curve), I do try my best with the knowledge set I have at the time. I'm going to use this moment to compare this with an experience I've had in music to support this philosophy, later in this post. A comparison I've been wanting to make for a long time, but now find the opportunity.
I do not have three uprights, on the same plane, for my stage. But, I think I recommend it as often as anyone else as of late. The point is to always educate as well as one can, so that any consumer at least knows what those compromises are. Because if one does not know of any such compromise, it will not and cannot ever be improved outside of pure luck or coincidence. Or worse yet, the consumer simply missed the immediate opportunity to do it the ideal way right from the start!
So for my unrelated example. I had an instrumental teacher. He tours the world and is top-notch at what he does. In his lessons, he would demand of his students things that he himself could not do. And every once in a while the student could do what he could not! Rarely, but it just goes to show we all have our own sets of capabilities. See, with many instrumentalists, the technical-musical choices are so often compromised to make it easier, but at the cost of the music itself.
For instance, if you have, say, a 3 voice fugue to perform, it would be surely nice to sustain all voices when called for. However, for many instruments its either impossible or extremely difficult to always do so. But, if you never knew of these particular examples of compromise, one could never improve them when the capability to be able to do so was finally achieved.
And the crazy thing is that capabilities do improve to make such things possible. So, some students will alter their performance with these goals in mind, and other more ignorant students continue with the exact same compromises,thinking, "oh, its good enough ain't it . . .", or perhaps worse yet, simply do not know any better.
So for AV, one of the more severe compromises I make among many lesser ones is indeed the inclusion of a horiz MTM below my screen. I in fact hate the idea of buying into a compromised design so much that it took me over a half a year to finally buy myself the matching center! I even played with the ideas of WTMW, top mounted tweeter, and very particularly the coincidental (as they are shorter), but I just am unwilling to buy a whole new speaker set at this moment. At least I know what compromise I am making so that when the capability to improve is there, I know exactly what to do.
I really wish I knew of this compromise when I first bought this speaker set.
To not educate someone from the beginning to the best of your knowledge is, well, just poor practice. Because they just might start off on the wrong foot, when the ideal might've been easily achieved right at the start. You never know.
Maybe a set of 3 towers for me in the future... anyone have a crystal ball?
Thanks for your post craig john. Post of the month, IMO.
-jostenmeat
Here's where I agree - everyone should start with the ideal setup in mind, and think hard about how close they can get to that. I've found that if people think hard, they can get a lot closer than they think. One thing to try is to just temporarily set the speakers up in the room, away from the walls, without regard to practical considerations (cosmetics, traffic) just to get a sense of how they should sound.
But fundamentally, you're off the mark, and here's why:
First, people in this forum will give a list of issues without giving any sense of their impact or importance. Partly because it's hard to know in a specific situation. Partly because they can't be bothered to try. Partly because they don't really understand the issues at work.
Second, a lot of people will repeat stuff they've read but never actually tried. For example, if you haven't personally tried some of these setups, you're no more qualified to speak to it than are the people you refer to above who have these setups who have never heard the ideal system. That's a fact. Think hard about that until you get it.
Some examples:
The comments about vertical vs horizontal dispersion. No one raising that issue pointed out that if there's one listening position and the speakers are at a reasonable height and aimed at that listening position, that issue isn't especially relevant. More importantly, no one tried to give a sense of the impact of that issue. People just give a laundry list of issues without weighting them - often because they have never tried it, and have no idea; or it's just a theoretical issue they've read about.
Another example is placing speakers in cabinets. There's so much wrong info here about that. People don't really even understand the issues at work, and have never tried it.
So you get people talking about this stuff as if it's a huge issue, don't bother even having a system if you have to do that - when in fact they can be a small issue or a non-issue, given the way people have described their plans for how they will use their system.
Without an accurate discussion of the impact or importance of a factor, merely throwing out the ways in which a proposed setup is not ideal is pretty limited, and doesn't give people enough of a sense of the trade offs.
Joined
·
12,858 Posts
Thanks for digging up this 6 year old thread. I re-read what I wrote 6 years ago, and I stand by it. In fact I feel even more strongly about it today than I did 6 years ago.
How does any of this ^^^ apply to the post I made 6 years ago? In that post, I went to great effort to explain the compromises and their impact. I wrote 5 paragraphs explaining them. I even supplied a link that graphically depicted the problem.
Maybe you didn't read to the end where I said:
"Personally, I have lived with many compromised systems in the past. I went from using the speakers in my RPTV cabinet as the CC, to placing a horizontal CC on top of the RPTV cabinet, to placing a horizontal CC below a projection screen, to placing an identical speaker behind an acoustically transparent screen. Each system sounded good and each upgrade was a little less of a compromise. However, it wasn't "ideal" until the last upgrade. Before, I could always tell that the imaging wasn't quite right, the timber-match wasn't quite right and the off-axis response wasn't quite right. Now, with 3 identical speakers behind the screen, the sound locks up perfectly with the video image and the timber-match is near perfect. I can sit anywhere in the front row and the front soundstage is virtually the same, (I've also EQ'd with Audyssey MultEQ XT.)"
So, I've been there... done that... I've thought hard about it... and I got it.
Again you didn't read to the end where I said:
"Overall, if one cannot achieve the "ideal" of 3 identical speakers behind an acoustically transparent screen, (and obviously many or most cannot), then one should simply be aware of the compromises involved. If those compromises are acceptable, then one should not look back."
I would take the above comment one step further: If one is aware of the compromises of a certain design, then one should do everything possible in the design of the theater to minimize them. But that can't be done that unless the comprises are KNOWN beforehand. That's all I'm trying to do... ensure people understand "best practice", (aka "ideal"), and the effects of not using those best practices.
In terms of L, C and R speaker placement, 3 identical speakers, deployed at the same height, (ear height), behind an AT screen is the "gold standard", the "best practice", or the "ideal."
You'll never go into a THX certified movie theater and find a CC laying on the floor, horizontally, underneath the screen. A THX certified movie theater is required to follow the best practice. Therefore, instead you'll find 3 identical speakers deployed at the exact same height behind an AT screen:
http://www.thx.com/professional/cinema-certification/speaker-layout-and-baffle-wall/
You'll never go into a multi-channel recording studio designed to ITU standards and find a horizontal CC placed on the floor underneath the screen. You'll find 3 vertically deployed, identical speaker at the same height, ear level, and aimed at the listening position.
http://www.aes.org/technical/documents/AESTD1001.pdf
If certified movie theaters and recording studios are designed to these standards, why would we, on the AV Science Forum, recommend or endorse compromises to those standards?
Personally, I myself have benefited greatly from this. I have learned so much about the compromises I had made in my previous designs from posters on this forum: Paul Scarpelli, Mark Seaton, Kal Rubinson, pepar, audioguy, and literally dozens of others. Their willingness to point out the compromises I made allowed me to understand and correct them. My theater has benefited greatly from their help.
Craig
Joined
·
30,658 Posts
Few really are.
It is also necessary that the drivers are similar distanced to each ear at the MLP as they are in the vertical position.
Of course, not everyone is picky enough (or discriminating) enough to care and many are happy with setups that flout all logic.
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
Another option ... there are a few speakers whose design/components allow you to bypass the whole controversy.
One example would be single concentric driver speakers like some KEF's (Q100, Q300, R100, LS-50). You can lay them on their side without affecting the sound at all.
One example would be single concentric driver speakers like some KEF's (Q100, Q300, R100, LS-50). You can lay them on their side without affecting the sound at all.
This was relevant to a question that came up today. Better to bump an old thread that lays out the issues well, than to recreate it, probably not as well.
Of course you do. Everyone could tell you would from your last set of posts.
Joined
·
8,011 Posts
True for those speaker (a tweeter built into the woofer) or these
http://www.aperionaudio.com/speakers/speakers-by-series/verus/verus-forte-satellite-speaker same idea
But they are few
But in most case I would keep a vertical design, vertical and the same for horizontal design.
Ray
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
Concentric drivers may not be the norm but they're also not that uncommon in popular speakers here in the forums. Just off the top of my head ... many of the JTR speakers use single (very large) concentric drivers. Other vendors with speakers that use a single concentric drivers include Vandersteen, Tannoy, Vu. (The new Pioneer Atmos/Elite speakers use concentric drivers also.)
I actually really like the sound of most the concentric speakers I've heard - nice imaging and off-axis performance.
I actually really like the sound of most the concentric speakers I've heard - nice imaging and off-axis performance.
Joined
·
497 Posts
Excellent post from 2008. This should be a sticky! However, trying to explain something that has been more or less scientifically proven to the "seat of the pants" crowd is like beating one's head against a wall.
Thank you for this excellent write up, albeitt 6 years late.
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!