Yes. The reflections will be missing sound in that part of the spectrum, so the sound power isn't even like it would be with other designs. And worse, hopefully no one ends up sitting at the end of the couch, right in one of those holes. You may hear complaints about muffled voices.
a) as I said earlier, even old Bose has rave reviews..no offense meant but is the truth. The C2+ has great reviews. All sorts of bad products have them. Lots of junk 2way mtm, soundboards..all have them.a) It actually sounds great. b) can you hear said comb filtering effects? c) if you mount it vertically, what effect does that have on any perceived ill effects?
You will also get folks saying something is crap that have never even heard it nor seen objective testing.
One thing I do know for sure: the dispersion is better than the C2+ in my room.
But maybe the Altitude 32 and my narrowish room are masking all these alleged problems?
Given you started this apparent FUD thread just based on pictures (and made some incorrect assumptions about the tweeter IIRC) I think you have shown far more bias than me, who actually has one - and I freely admit I am biased as a result and want to see proper test results.
I dont need to drive a car with square tires to know its going to be a bad experience
LOL first, I NEVER made any comments about the tweeter. The problem is the side by side mid range drivers so at least get your facts straight. THAT is the huge issue with that flawed designed. The same thing they did with the C2+ and instead of fixing it for C3+ as many of us were hoping, they went with marketing over engineering. Of course you are biased because it sucks having to return it. I paid $98 to return my C2+ after testing how bad it was. Many will just LEARN to like it instead of spending $100 to send it back. So I get it...bias confirmation an all that.
Hence the desire for measurements.Erin has measurments of the C1+ and C2+, so you can see the effect of dual midrange drivers. The C2+ has 3" midrange drivers with close spacing under the tweeter, while the C3+ has 5.25" midrange drivers with wider spacing on either side of the tweeter. This indicates the C3+ will be even narrower in horizontal dispersion.@beaRA Has someone actually posted dispersion plots showing narrow mid dispersion or is that just your expectation from it being MTM?
What frequencies do you mean by midrange? 500Hz to 2500kHz?
Would that still be the case if the speaker can be positioned vertically (e.g. with AT screen)?
I'm keen to try that but it's a heavy beast to move around and is working really well. Putting it vertically would also mean I have to move my processor and 2 x 15" subs so it may well not be worth the effort/pain.
pierreaubert.github.io
pierreaubert.github.io
Exactly. You can easily tell without having to test it..is not like it was designed at Hogwarts lolErin has measurments of the C1+ and C2+, so you can see the effect of dual midrange drivers. The C2+ has 3" midrange drivers with close spacing under the tweeter, while the C3+ has 5.25" midrange drivers with wider spacing on either side of the tweeter. This indicates the C3+ will be even narrower in horizontal dispersion.
The C3+ midrange drivers have a band pass between 350Hz - 2.8kHz. This is the range where there will be cancelation off-axis. If you turn it vertically, the cancelation will now be in the vertical dispersion, which is not as problematic acoustically.
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
Erin has measurments of the C1+ and C2+, so you can see the effect of dual midrange drivers. The C2+ has 3" midrange drivers with close spacing under the tweeter, while the C3+ has 5.25" midrange drivers with wider spacing on either side of the tweeter. This indicates the C3+ will be even narrower in horizontal dispersion.
The C3+ midrange drivers have a band pass between 350Hz - 2.8kHz. This is the range where there will be cancelation off-axis. If you turn it vertically, the cancelation will now be in the vertical dispersion, which is not as problematic acoustically.
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
A collection of loudspeakers measurements
) if the speakers are used in this orientation they would be better with regard to perceived fall-off.
The opposite.
The smaller the driver, the wider the dispersion. That's why directivity narrows for woofers as they approach the crossover to the tweeter, and why waveguides are needed to restrict the tweeter (and lower the XO point) to match them.
You started our bit of back and forth after I posted a response to someone intending to use the C3+ horizontally under a TV. If you are using the C3+ vertically, my commentary doesn't apply. Vertical MTM layouts are very common for LCR use in home theater to increase sensitivity and reduce distortion. Narrow vertical dispersion is less problematic for listener placement and early reflections than narrow horizontal dispersion.That was exactly my point with regard to vertical dispersion, if everyone's head is a within a few degrees vertically and are not bobbing up and down while listening too much (head-banging
Doesn't dispersion increase the larger the driver is?
In my use case, L+R are probably less than 30 degrees off-axis from centre, so if the dispersion hasn't fallen off much within that range versus if you e.g. have your seat(s) 50+ degrees off-axis it may be a non-issue depending on the measurements.
I'll have to do some measurements in the new year as moving L/R from centre seems to result in much less/no noticeable drop-off than the C2+ which was very obvious.
C2+ was a noticeable 2 or 3db, with the C3+ it's probably less than 1 - I've listed to e.g. Nina Simone vocals (centre stage before the music comes in) and moved L/R with pretty much no perceived change in level.
Another thing to note is with a C2+ horizontal, there seemed to be a difference between above and below dispersion, making it important to have the tweeter in the right orientation depending on how high/low you have it, I would expect the C3+ not to have that problem. Due to this I have my L/R C2+s positioned with the tweeters towards centre as that does seem to give the best coverage.
Such a shame Erin's measurements are out of action at the moment.
a) It actually sounds great. b) can you hear said comb filtering effects? c) if you mount it vertically, what effect does that have on any perceived ill effects?
You will also get folks saying something is crap that have never even heard it nor seen objective testing.
One thing I do know for sure: the dispersion is better than the C2+ in my room.
But maybe the Altitude 32 and my narrowish room are masking all these alleged problems?
Given you started this apparent FUD thread just based on pictures (and made some incorrect assumptions about the tweeter IIRC) I think you have shown far more bias than me, who actually has one - and I freely admit I am biased as a result and want to see proper test results.
If you are using it vertically, you probably want to rotate the AMT tweeter 90 degrees (if the screw posts are in a square). AMTs definitely are directional, as they disperse quite differently vertically vs. horizontally, unlike a dome tweeter.
