[badtlc]

I know that a vertical 2-way bookshelf is perfect fine as a center channel but what about horizontal? I see some companies do offer 2-way bookshelves with horizontal orientation as a center channel but this is rather rare. Is there a reason why MTM center channel is so much more popular that MT center channel design?

I know MTM is not an ideal design for a horizontal center speaker but if MT was better, I would think there would be more of them out there especially given the lower cost of an MT design. Before I jump in on buying an MT center is there some significant reason to avoid it?

 

[Kini62]

I know that a vertical 2-way bookshelf is perfect fine as a center channel but what about horizontal? I see some companies do offer 2-way bookshelves with horizontal orientation as a center channel but this is rather rare. Is there a reason why MTM center channel is so much more popular that MT center channel design?

I know MTM is not an ideal design for a horizontal center speaker but if MT was better, I would think there would be more of them out there especially given the lower cost of an MT design. Before I jump in on buying an MT center is there some significant reason to avoid it?

Symmetry. People don't like the odd off center look of a horizontal MT speaker. That would be the only reason.

 

[badtlc]

Symmetry. People don't like the odd off center look of a horizontal MT speaker. That would be the only reason.

I can understand that but I guess I see that as a reason to leave the grill on.

 

[tonygeno]

Also power handling. Centers take on a heavy load with regard to home theater sound duties.

 

[Zorba922]

I know that a vertical 2-way bookshelf is perfect fine as a center channel but what about horizontal? I see some companies do offer 2-way bookshelves with horizontal orientation as a center channel but this is rather rare. Is there a reason why MTM center channel is so much more popular that MT center channel design?

Aside from the visual symmetry of the MTM design, having TWO active woofers indisputably produces greater headroom and dynamics than ONE, which comes in handy for the one speaker that carries most of the output during HT/TV usage if one listens at higher volumes or sits further away.

 

[gajCA]

My very first center was a two way powered NAD speaker flopped on its side and it worked well as I don't recall any major issue.

That was in the mid 80s in the infancy of 5.1 so no such thing as AVRs or dedicated MTM center channels.

 

[badtlc]

Aside from the visual symmetry of the MTM design, having TWO active woofers indisputably produces greater headroom and dynamics than ONE, which comes in handy for the one speaker that carries most of the output during HT/TV usage if one listens at higher volumes or sits further away.

The MT I am talking about has a 10" woofer and is 95db at 8 ohms. It would have a lot more headroom than standard MTM centers.

 

[Ryan Statz]

The MT I am talking about has a 10" woofer and is 95db at 8 ohms. It would have a lot more headroom than standard MTM centers.

What speaker?

 

[kblackburn101]

The MT I am talking about has a 10" woofer and is 95db at 8 ohms. It would have a lot more headroom than standard MTM centers.

Which bookshelves , should work ..
Mtm works perfect if you sit directly infront , 3 way centers are better for multiple seats .

 

[badtlc]

What speaker?

PSA MT110

 

[Kini62]

The MT I am talking about has a 10" woofer and is 95db at 8 ohms. It would have a lot more headroom than standard MTM centers.

Just a little anecdotal experience. In my room the MT110s were about 2db less efficient than my RF62IIs. Klipsch rated the RFs at 97db but everyone says that they are way over rated.

 

[Zorba922]

The MT I am talking about has a 10" woofer and is 95db at 8 ohms. It would have a lot more headroom than standard MTM centers.

Oh wow, never mind then. That's obviously an exception to the general rule.

 

[hopefullguy]

does anyone know what crossover is in the MTM 210 center?

will be using that in a vertical position behind an A/T screen with my old klipsch RF-3 fronts/wides.

thanks

 

[kblackburn101]

PSA MT110

That should work fine it’s huge
Power sound? That could work tho duel woofer model Isn’t much more .

 

[Dave in Green]

Just a little anecdotal experience. In my room the MT110s were about 2db less efficient than my RF62IIs. Klipsch rated the RFs at 97db but everyone says that they are way over rated.

Most of the measured reviews of Klipsch speakers have shown them to be ~6 dB less efficient than Klipsch specs. For example the RP600M is specified by Klipsch at 96 dB efficiency but Stereophile measured only 89.6 dB. I can't find a measured review of the RF62II but subtracting 6 dB from the rated 97 would make it ~91 dB. So by your reckoning tha MT110 would be 2 dB less than that or only 89 dB. You might want to take that estimate to the PSA thread and run it by @Tom Vodhanel.

 

[RBhifi]

The PSA MT110-M that I just got is louder than the Klipsch RC 62 ll center channel speaker it replaced. Audyssey set my C.C. level down 4 compared to my RC-62 II . Even before I ran Audyssey I noticed it was louder. So, either my mt110-m is under rated and has a sensitivity of about 101db, or my rc62ll is way over rated and is actually about 91db. 🤔..😉

 

[kblackburn101]

The PSA MT110-M that I just got is louder than the Klipsch RC 62 ll center channel speaker it replaced. Audyssey set my C.C. level down 4 compared to my RC-62 II . Even before I ran Audyssey I noticed it was louder. So, either my mt110-m is under rated and has a sensitivity of about 101db, or my rc62ll is way over rated and is actually about 91db. 🤔..😉

3’ db louder is a lot of psa is 95 actually.
Klipch listed as 98 so probably 92, power sound single woofer beats two smaller 6.5” easily ? Maybe the pro drivers give it more spl then its rates for or room gain

https://2d73e25b29782b6d6766-9c8af5cbfef16739445bc76457060528.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/RC62IIcutsheet_635042119045410000.pdf

I’d expect to significantly better the quality for $350 more so it makes sense ..

 

[RBhifi]

I put my mt110-m centered in the same spot( within 1") and the same distance to my main listing position as the rc62ll it replaced(within 1"). I even set the tweeter height the same (within 1/2"). You must have not positioned you mt110 in the same spot as you rc62ll, or changed something else in your room to cause such a difference. Whatever the cause it's the opposite of my experience.

 

[RBhifi]

Sorry Kini62, I just realized you said rf62ll not rc62ll. Still if you positioned your mt110 at a different distance, and with the tweeter at a different height that could be the cause of your difference. Sorry to hear you had a negative experience with the mt110. I would have been pretty upset myself.

 

[Dave in Green]

Most of the measured reviews of Klipsch speakers have shown them to be ~6 dB less efficient than Klipsch specs. For example the RP600M is specified by Klipsch at 96 dB efficiency but Stereophile measured only 89.6 dB. I can't find a measured review of the RF62II but subtracting 6 dB from the rated 97 would make it ~91 dB. So by your reckoning tha MT110 would be 2 dB less than that or only 89 dB. You might want to take that estimate to the PSA thread and run it by @Tom Vodhanel.

@Kini62, I see now that your experience with the MT110 is fully documented in the PSA thread. To briefly sum it up you said you were disappointed to find your MT110s to be less sensitive than your Klipsch RF62IIs the way you were running them in your room when you fully expected the PSA to be more sensitive than the Klipsch. This result was so unusual that many MT110 owners, including some who had switched from Klipsch, tried to help you identify the unique issue you had run into. You said you were so disappointed that you would return the MT110s if the shipping cost from Hawaii wasn't so high.

@Tom Vodhanel also tried to help you work through your issue and then generously offered to pick up any additional cost of shipping the speakers back to the mainland. You eventually took him up on that offer and expressed your gratitude to Tom and the whole PSA community for all the time and effort they put into trying to help you through a speaker sensitivity issue that no other PSA owner said they had experienced.

In conclusion it seems your experience with lower than expected MT110 speaker sensitivity was unique to the PSA community and would most likely not be applicable to others. We can only hope that someone like @bikinpunk will find a way to get hold of an MT110 or other PSA speaker, run it through his Klippel measuring device and share objective measurements of the performance including actual sensitivity so we don't have to rely exclusively on user listening impressions.