AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,231 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Right now, my center is an identical speaker as my Left and Right. Seems to be the best way to have a seamless sound field across the front. However, I am relocating due to a job transfer and re-evaluating everything in my home theater and which stuff will survive the move. I am considering moving to fixed screen so that I can use Carada's new masking system which would mean a traditional horizontal center channel speaker. The problem is that the ones that I have had at home despite manufacturer's claims, have been significantly inferior to the floor standing models. Has this changed? B&W appears to have a substantial center that blends with the 800 series. What other high-end speaker companies do?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts
There are some great center out there. You do have to be careful about off-axis listening with an MTM array, but there are some large centers with a vertically oriented tweeter and midrange flanked by woofers. I am still of the opinion that as far as off-axis listening goes that a vertically oriented center is best, however I think the most major combing problems with off-axis listening are ameliorated with a vertically oriented Tweet Midrange array, that's my .02


The paradigm signature centers come to mind, but there are many others as well.


Another trick to get things really REALLY coherent, is Audyssey. Even with imperfectly matched speakers, occassionally grossly imperfectly matched speakers, Audyssey does wonders at making them blend together. It's one of the most impressive parts of Dynamic EQ, IMO, and the biggest change to my system, and I do not have my surrounds matched to my fronts, now it's amazingly cohesive. Just an aside thought. OBviously starting with matched speakers is best, but...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
I can't speak for all, but the Revel Salon makes a wonderful, natural sounding center. It is excellent for center vocals, and since it is quite large can also handle the load that is given to the center channel.


Joey
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeycalda /forum/post/16966019


I can't speak for all, but the Revel Salon makes a wonderful, natural sounding center. It is excellent for center vocals, and since it is quite large can also handle the load that is given to the center channel.


Joey

??? the salon isn't a horizontally oriented speaker. Not relevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,655 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger /forum/post/16965798


Right now, my center is an identical speaker as my Left and Right.


I've tried something similar myself, running a single (inexpensive) PSB Alpha B1 (2 way monitor) as my center speaker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger /forum/post/16965798


Seems to be the best way to have a seamless sound field across the front. However, I am relocating due to a job transfer and re-evaluating everything in my home theater and which stuff will survive the move. I am considering moving to fixed screen so that I can use Carada's new masking system which would mean a traditional horizontal center channel speaker. The problem is that the ones that I have had at home despite manufacturer's claims, have been significantly inferior to the floor standing models. Has this changed? B&W appears to have a substantial center that blends with the 800 series. What other high-end speaker companies do?


FWIW I'm currently running a Revel performa C52 as my center and wouldn't have any issue with running a C32. But I have the extra room in my TV rack for the C52 immediately below my 37" LCD TV.


I do NOT have room (in my rack) for a Revel Ultima Voice (1 or 2) center speaker, and suspect that it does not have that much more to offer over the Performa C52 that I already have, let alone that it costs 2-to-7x (used) what I paid for my used C52.


FWIW while I enjoy movies with 5.1 surround sound, they are at most 20% of my music/HT system usage. Music (both 2 channel and MC) is where it's at for me 80% of the time.


Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,697 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles /forum/post/16965955


There are some great center out there. You do have to be careful about off-axis listening with an MTM array, but there are some large centers with a vertically oriented tweeter and midrange flanked by woofers. I am still of the opinion that as far as off-axis listening goes that a vertically oriented center is best, however I think the most major combing problems with off-axis listening are ameliorated with a vertically oriented Tweet Midrange array, that's my .02.

Hi Chris,


Can you please elaborate on how a vertically oriented tweeter midrange array ameliorates off-axis combing problems? Does this have to do with the fact that in most cases the audience's ears are close to equidistant from the drivers regardless of how far off-axis they are seated?


Thanks.


Larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,788 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin /forum/post/16970658


Hi Chris,


Can you please elaborate on how a vertically oriented tweeter midrange array ameliorates off-axis combing problems? Does this have to do with the fact that in most cases the audience's ears are close to equidistant from the drivers regardless of how far off-axis they are seated?


Thanks.


Larry

No. It is because you do not change your vertical position very much but you do move your head horizontally all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
You can do 3 identical center channels as LCR under the screen with excellent results.


IE Three Revel Voice 2's as LCR, all three positioned under the solid/nonAT screen.


Revel even recommends this as a perfectly acceptable option. Just don't put them on the floor. Use their stands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,524 Posts
Bulldogger asked if high-end centre channels have gotten better. I don't know what the "old" ones were like but there are certainly acceptable centre channels now. I've got an ATC C6 active centre-channel which is a very good match for my ATC Anniversary 100 mains. Almost the same in terms of overall size, frequency response, and output. In my opinion you don't have to have IDENTICAL speakers up front (although it would be nice for a number of reasons) to get optimum results. It just depends on what your speaker manufacturer has to offer. The ATC speakers from the 50 up are designed to be mixed and matched so it isn't surprising that they work well together...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,697 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles /forum/post/16965955


There are some great center out there. You do have to be careful about off-axis listening with an MTM array, but there are some large centers with a vertically oriented tweeter and midrange flanked by woofers. I am still of the opinion that as far as off-axis listening goes that a vertically oriented center is best, however I think the most major combing problems with off-axis listening are ameliorated with a vertically oriented Tweet Midrange array, that's my .02
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin /forum/post/16970658


Hi Chris,


Can you please elaborate on how a vertically oriented tweeter midrange array ameliorates off-axis combing problems? Does this have to do with the fact that in most cases the audience's ears are close to equidistant from the drivers regardless of how far off-axis they are seated?


Thanks.


Larry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson /forum/post/16972688


No. It is because you do not change your vertical position very much but you do move your head horizontally all the time.

Hi Chris and Kal,


Please excuse this crude drawing attached. I am attempting to show that if your ears are centered on two vertically oriented drivers on-axis, and you move off-axis, but your ears are still at the same height, the distance to each driver to the ear will remain the same even though both distances have increased from the on-axis distance. If you have equal distances you can't have comb filtering.


For horizontally oriented drivers if the ear is equi-distant to both drivers on-axis, and the listener moves off-axis at the same height, the distances between each driver and the ear becoming progressively different lengths. With different lengths you have a potential for comb filtering.


Larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
If you have speakers designed from the ground up for wide dispersion (vertical and horizontal), you won't have any problems.


Most folks with dedicated HT's and reclining seats will move their heads up and down at least one foot during a movie. So, you have both horizontal and vertical head movement that is significant. It can only be accomidated with speakers that have wide dispersion patterns.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin /forum/post/16977013


Hi Chris and Kal,


Please excuse this crude drawing attached. I am attempting to show that if your ears are centered on two vertically oriented drivers on-axis, and you move off-axis, but your ears are still at the same height, the distance to each driver to the ear will remain the same even though both distances have increased from the on-axis distance. If you have equal distances you can't have comb filtering.


For horizontally oriented drivers if the ear is equi-distant to both drivers on-axis, and the listener moves off-axis at the same height, the distances between each driver and the ear becoming progressively different lengths. With different lengths you have a potential for comb filtering.


Larry

Exactly.


With a vertically oriented MTM array, you still have combing if you move off-axis vertically, but you can arrange the speaker so the tweeter is level and at ear height, which avoids the combing. People who aren't sitting in the sweetspot still have their head at the same height, so still no combing even if they're off-axis.


With a horizontally oriented MTM array, you won't have combing in the sweetspot, but anyone sitting off axis will.


MTM arrays horizontally have this weakness, but doesn't mean that they are always a terrible choice. I use a horizontally oriented MTM center channel for instance, but I don't hold any fantasies that combing isn't an issue for off-axis listening, it certainly remains an issue. That's why I sit in the sweetspot, and relegate my guests to the inferior seats!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,231 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceenhad /forum/post/16970593


Wouldn't using an AT screen be less of a compromise than moving to a horizontal centre channel in your case?

I have an AT screen. I plan to use a fixed AT screen if I switch.Right now I have a retractable screen.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,231 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin /forum/post/16977013



For horizontally oriented drivers if the ear is equi-distant to both drivers on-axis, and the listener moves off-axis at the same height, the distances between each driver and the ear becoming progressively different lengths. With different lengths you have a potential for comb filtering.


Larry

What do you think of this approach. I like Mcintosh speakers and find that you get very wide dispersion with their approach. It's almost like an electrostat sound but with better imaging.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,697 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogger /forum/post/17004114


What do you think of this approach. I like Mcintosh speakers and find that you get very wide dispersion with their approach. It's almost like an electrostat sound but with better imaging.

Hi,


I certainly will defer to the more knowledgeable forum members on this design, but with two woofers, 32 mid-range drivers, and 20 tweeters and rated at 1200 watts per channel, it certainly should have no problems with reaching reference levels given adequate amplifier power.



What I obviously don't understand is with so many drivers spaced over 3' horizontally apart in some instances, how can serious comb filtering be avoided? At least in our simplistic example an on-axis listener could be positioned to be equidistant from a pair of horizontally spaced drivers. How can even an on-axis listener be positioned equidistant from 20 tweeters and 32 mid-range drivers?
I'm assuming that all tweeter are playing the same sounds and likewise with all mid-range drivers.


Larry
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,231 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin /forum/post/17007216


What I obviously don't understand is with so many drivers spaced over 3' horizontally apart in some instances, how can serious comb filtering be avoided? At least in our simplistic example an on-axis listener could be positioned to be equidistant from a pair of horizontally spaced drivers. How can even an on-axis listener be positioned equidistant from 20 tweeters and 32 mid-range drivers?
I'm assuming that all tweeter are playing the same sounds and likewise with all mid-range drivers.


Larry

I am not sure. With the speakers that I have, which have a 5 tweeter array that is a Bessel array http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=6012 , I do not hear comb filtering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,788 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryChanin /forum/post/17007216


Hi,


I certainly will defer to the more knowledgeable forum members on this design, but with two woofers, 32 mid-range drivers, and 20 tweeters and rated at 1200 watts per channel, it certainly should have no problems with reaching reference levels given adequate amplifier power.



What I obviously don't understand is with so many drivers spaced over 3' horizontally apart in some instances, how can serious comb filtering be avoided? At least in our simplistic example an on-axis listener could be positioned to be equidistant from a pair of horizontally spaced drivers. How can even an on-axis listener be positioned equidistant from 20 tweeters and 32 mid-range drivers?
I'm assuming that all tweeter are playing the same sounds and likewise with all mid-range drivers.


Larry

I suspect that the multiplicity of the drivers increases the complexity of the interference such that its spatial distribution is more fine-grained and approach randomness. Of course, this also requires that you are listening far from the array with regard to the wavelengths involved, something that is likely when one see the small size of the drivers.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top