AVS Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,063 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've read a bit about this but wanted to hear from folks who've built some of the DIY MTM's.

Simple question...does the MTM configuration work ok for a 2-channel setup or would I notice the "narrowness" when not in my ideal sitting position? They won't be nearfield...they will be about 8'-10' away and 6'-8' apart. I don't want to get myself into a "sweet spot" only type of deal.

Only reason why I'm debating an MTM configuration is due to the extra low-end they provide. But in reality, I'd probably be fine with a TM as I'm not going to listen at high levels. I also really want to build an MTM though for one reason or another...maybe I should just pick a cheap one like the OS or S2000 (to get it out of my system, lol).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,748 Posts
I had a similar question wrt 2.0
given the performance of my F15's at a recent GTG

so I asked @mtg90 about the HTM12's and tuning lower, specifically with an eye on and an ear bent to being a 2.0 system.
his reply:

'If the HTM-12 was built as 18"w x 25"h x 18"d it will give an F3 in the upper 40's and in room should give decent extension and output down to the low 40's upper 30's. Ports for this modification do not need to be changed from the 3" stock length."

If your budget and DIY ability or other cab building resources are up for it,

you won't be "jonesing" about up-grade-itis.
go to the head of the class . .

the stereo image of those 15" SEOS horns IS going to put a smile on your face and in your ears-every time

you would of course do some REW and REQ , room treatment work . . .

HTH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
I had a similar question wrt 2.0
given the performance of my F15's at a recent GTG

so I asked @mtg90 about the HTM12's and tuning lower, specifically with an eye on and an ear bent to being a 2.0 system.
his reply:

'If the HTM-12 was built as 18"w x 25"h x 18"d it will give an F3 in the upper 40's and in room should give decent extension and output down to the low 40's upper 30's. Ports for this modification do not need to be changed from the 3" stock length."

If your budget and DIY ability or other cab building resources are up for it,

you won't be "jonesing" about up-grade-itis.
go to the head of the class . .

the stereo image of those 15" SEOS horns IS going to put a smile on your face and in your ears-every time

you would of course do some REW and REQ , room treatment work . . .

HTH
Ha, I made the same mistake when reading OP the first time. MTM != HTM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,063 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yeah, not the "HTM-X" speaker specifically. The configuration of the 2-way TM design vs. the 2-way MTM design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,748 Posts
the F15's, 11' away

and about 6.5', +/- C2C for the horns depending on toe-in,
toe-in more for larger stereo sweep spot

for the record . .
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,609 Posts
@_tk

The “narrowness” you describe from an MTM is usually only present when the MTM is horizontal and all the drivers are on the same plane. That’s when cancellation occurs when you go off axis.

I have MTM CMT340’s from ascend and I find their soundstage to be very wide with no “narrowness” compared to a standard TM speaker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,063 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
So then...why shouldn't I go MTM over MT in a 2-channel environment? There must be a reason why 90% of the bookshelfs made today are all MT configuration?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,609 Posts
So then...why shouldn't I go MTM over MT in a 2-channel environment? There must be a reason why 90% of the bookshelfs made today are all MT configuration?

It’s cheaper...?

Smaller form factor is more attractive?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,063 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
It’s cheaper...?
Sure, but not by too much. Not like it's double the price.

Smaller form factor is more attractive?
Short squatty speakers were never attractive IMO. A slender MTM would look a lot better.


Although, I was specifically referring to sound and if the MTM's have some characteristic that makes designers stay away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,887 Posts
So then...why shouldn't I go MTM over MT in a 2-channel environment? There must be a reason why 90% of the bookshelfs made today are all MT configuration?
MTM gives you more sensitivity, something like 3 db because of the extra driver, or in other words the MTM will take a half of watt of power to rock out and your TM will take 1 Watt. Amplifier power is cheap these days so I don't worry too much about sensitivity.

The bigger difference to me is that a TM sounds more natural because the midbass/midrange is all coming from 1 speaker instead of 2. Vocals coming from a line as in an MTM layout just doesn't sound as natural as coming from a single source because voices in real life come from 1 source.

There is also the lobing due to the driver spacing, basically there will be nulls at a certain vertical angle, you won't notice it on-axis but they will be ceiling reflections and they won't match the direct sound and therefore will make the sound not as clean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,063 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
MTM gives you more sensitivity, something like 3 db because of the extra driver, or in other words the MTM will take a half of watt of power to rock out and your TM will take 1 Watt. Amplifier power is cheap these days so I don't worry too much about sensitivity.

The bigger difference to me is that a TM sounds more natural because the midbass/midrange is all coming from 1 speaker instead of 2. Vocals coming from a line as in an MTM layout just doesn't sound as natural as coming from a single source because voices in real life come from 1 source.

There is also the lobing due to the driver spacing, basically there will be nulls at a certain vertical angle, you won't notice it on-axis but they will be ceiling reflections and they won't match the direct sound and therefore will make the sound not as clean.

Thanks. That makes sense and would explain why MTM is more popular for home theater than it is for 2-channel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
Unless the 1/4 wave spacing is off or the listener is sitting 5 mm's away from the speaker, it should act as a point source with a good combination at the cross over. The MTM will add spl, but most OEM's use it to add additional range. The centers that use smaller speakers in a set, but they use 4 instead of 2, give them additional sensitivity down low to compete with the bigger towers.


MTM's are almost always going to be better, except if you are listening near field. They are also not always necessary, so people can still chose cheaper/smaller options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Other than what's been discussed......

MTM's are nice because finding the sweet spot is easy...just get the speaker high enough so the tweeter is at ear height when you are seated and you are good to go. They are idiot-proof..... and I like that, simple can be good.

MTM's in theory could reduce ceiling reflections in large rooms. This might not be a big deal in small rooms.

TM's can be time aligned by raising them up on adjustable stands so your ears are in-line with the bottom of the woofer (or slanting the baffle or tilting them up) or something close to that.... but you would need to experiment for best results. That's a lot of extra work and I don't think the average consumer is going to do that. People like plug-and-play.

Both types can have different dispersion patterns, and can sound different - you would have to try them to see what you like best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I've never had luck with MTMs having as big a soundstage size as TMs. If you want the extra driver for more sensitivity and low end extension, I'd recommend you go TMM.

- That's what I'm looking to build now, TMM satellites.

But I wonder if it would matter if you have surround speakers?
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top