Center Channel Timbre Matching vs Dispersion For Off Axis Listening

[anotherhobby]

If you want to watch the fire and the film at the same time then yes, but isn’t that asking too much? Besides, you can’t bring the TV down over the fireplace while the fire is on, so what’s your point?

Where exactly are you suggesting a speaker go?
EDIT: never mind. this is pointless and thread jacking.

 

[luft262]

The jury hasn't come in on the importance of uniform horizontal directivity, yet. Timbre is good because few speakers have it to begin with and nothing else makes instruments sound real more than this. Play everything at realistic levels and you can forget about the details.

(edit: is luft262 stalking everyone?)

Lol! I just thought it was be nice to like the comments!

 

[luft262]

Or you use a coaxial…

From what I understand a coaxial speaker is like a car speaker right? Where the tweeter is built into the middle of the woofer? That seems like a great idea so I'm not sure why manufacturers aren't doing that.

Is it because the center channel has to produce its own stereo effect (requiring a pair of woofers) since so much content is going to be sent to it? Maybe to save the cost of putting two tweeters on the same speaker? From a sound standpoint I can only imagine that it's easier to make a good 2-way speaker with one crossover than a good 3-way speaker with two crossovers, so maybe they are sacrificing off axis performance for better on axis performance?

What do you think?

 

[f1shb0n3]

AVR's room correction (if good) can timbre-match any speaker with good directivity. Won't make them all sound the same, but should be close enough for them to blend well.

 

[sarumbear]

From what I understand a coaxial speaker is like a car speaker right? Where the tweeter is built into the middle of the woofer? That seems like a great idea so I'm not sure why manufacturers aren't doing that.

Is it because the center channel has to produce its own stereo effect (requiring a pair of woofers) since so much content is going to be sent to it? Maybe to save the cost of putting two tweeters on the same speaker? From a sound standpoint I can only imagine that it's easier to make a good 2-way speaker with one crossover than a good 3-way speaker with two crossovers, so maybe they are sacrificing off axis performance for better on axis performance?

What do you think?

You may want to read the reviews of KEF's coaxial speaker here and also research their products. KEF is big on coax speakers. They have a patent, which is believed to be stopping competition.

 

[jhaider]

Do you feel it is more important that your center channel be timbre matched, i.e. from the same brand/model line as the mains, or would you rather have a center channel with a wide dispersion pattern so that off axis listeners can hear the center channel better.

I voted for the former, but your definition of “matched” is off here. There are five levels of matching:

1) same speaker, same orientation, same height. This is the goal

2) same speaker, same orientation, higher or lower than left/right

3) same speaker, coaxial MF/HF, different orientation or tweeter height than L/R

4) substantially similar speaker, MF/HF of same design and orientation, low crossover to woofers

5) not matched in any meaningful sonic sense of the term

 

[Sancus]

While it would have been nice to take all sorts of criteria into consideration when selecting my center channel, sometimes you are just boxed into a corner and you don't have a lot of flexibility. Also, there is not a lot of dispersion/measurement data out there for center channels compared to mains, so how would you know most of the time?

If you understand the MTM layout you know it'll always be bad, even without measurements, so there is that much. But I agree that isn't common knowledge at all.

Your setup looks fine to me given your constraints. This is one of the reasons I hate these center channel threads. It frequently comes down to people who bought them saying, basically, "it's unfair to say my speaker choice sucks because I didn't have a choice due to budget/physical constraints/whatever." Not every system needs to have the best possible thing. If it outputs sound, and you're happy with it, that's fine!

It's a different thing to pretend that, because you were stuck buying one, that means 2-way MTMs are as good as other options. Everybody who understands the importance of smooth off-axis response knows they're not good. But sometimes you compromise. My 4" PC desktop speakers aren't great, I have no illusions about that, but that's fine. I just expect them to output sound and not take up space -- not to compete with my Genelecs.

The purpose of this forum is to find the best options for sound quality, but sometimes other factors have to take priority. That's just life. Nobody is(or should be) judging anyone because of what products they bought. Unless it's $10,000 power cables. Then you're a dumbass.

 

[luft262]

I voted for the former, but your definition of “matched” is off here. There are five levels of matching:

1) same speaker, same orientation, same height. This is the goal

2) same speaker, same orientation, higher or lower than left/right

3) same speaker, coaxial MF/HF, different orientation or tweeter height than L/R

4) substantially similar speaker, MF/HF of same design and orientation, low crossover to woofers

5) not matched in any meaningful sonic sense of the term

That makes sense, but I guess I'm assuming that speaker manufacturers are shooting for #4 and pretty much any center speaker that isn't the exact same speakers as the mains (#1 - #3) will at best qualify for #4 and most likely be #5 (different MFG).

 

[jhaider]

That makes sense, but I guess I'm assuming that speaker manufacturers are shooting for #4 and pretty much any center speaker that isn't the exact same speakers as the mains (#1 - #3) will at best qualify for #4 and most likely be #5 (different MFG).

Most clearly are not, given that the criteria for 4th tier matching include the following requirement: MF/HF of same design and orientation.

There are some 3-way centers that meet the criteria for 4th tier marching. No toppled MTMs may apply.

 

[luft262]

If you understand the MTM layout you know it'll always be bad, even without measurements, so there is that much. But I agree that isn't common knowledge at all.

Your setup looks fine to me given your constraints. This is one of the reasons I hate these center channel threads. It frequently comes down to people who bought them saying, basically, "it's unfair to say my speaker choice sucks because I didn't have a choice due to budget/physical constraints/whatever." Not every system needs to have the best possible thing. If it outputs sound, and you're happy with it, that's fine!

It's a different thing to pretend that, because you were stuck buying one, that means 2-way MTMs are as good as other options. Everybody who understands the importance of smooth off-axis response knows they're not good. But sometimes you compromise. My 4" PC desktop speakers aren't great, I have no illusions about that, but that's fine. I just expect them to output sound and not take up space -- not to compete with my Genelecs.

The purpose of this forum is to find the best options for sound quality, but sometimes other factors have to take priority. That's just life. Nobody is(or should be) judging anyone because of what products they bought. Unless it's $10,000 power cables. Then you're a dumbass.

That's a great summary. I guess it's hard to quantify how much of a trade off one might expect to encounter getting a center channel speaker from a different brand just because it's a 3 way design. Ultimately, at this point I guess that's what I'm most interested in. Assuming the speaker has to be a normal, lowish-profile horizontally oriented center speaker is it better to get the same brand/model type or look for a coaxial or 3-way that's from a completely different company?

 

[luft262]

Most clearly are not, given that the criteria for 4th tier matching include the following requirement: MF/HF of same design and orientation.

There are some 3-way centers that meet the criteria for 4th tier marching. No toppled MTMs may apply.

So basically for sound quality get the exact same speaker as the mains, or maybe the bookshelf version, otherwise don't worry about it and just get what fits?

 

[Sancus]

Assuming the speaker has to be a normal, lowish-profile horizontally oriented center speaker is it better to get the same brand/model type or look for a coaxial or 3-way that's from a completely different company?

3-way/coaxial from different company, especially if you are using automatic room EQ or understand how to EQ. And *definitely* if there are anechoic measurements. Small bookshelves would also work well -- that's the reason Erin recommends the Arendal 1961 which is 11" tall, definitely shorter than some of the big 3-way centers.

I guess it's hard to quantify how much of a trade off one might expect to encounter

Erin's binaural pink noise examples of off-axis sound are the best attempt I've seen at actually showing people the worst of it. It's not perfect, but short of getting the different options into your room and trialing them, it's the best you're gonna get from the internet.

 

[luft262]

3-way/coaxial from different company, especially if you are using automatic room EQ or understand how to EQ. And *definitely* if there are anechoic measurements. Small bookshelves would also work well -- that's the reason Erin recommends the Arendal 1961 which is 11" tall, definitely shorter than some of the big 3-way centers.

Erin's binaural pink noise examples of off-axis sound are the best attempt I've seen at actually showing people the worst of it. It's not perfect, but short of getting the different options into your room and trialing them, it's the best you're gonna get from the internet.

I'm either gonna get the Aria 906 bookshelf to better match the 926 mains in height and dispersion and move the TV up or say screw it and just get the Aria 900 center (2-way) design and go for looks and WAF. I'll put some tape on the wall to show the needed TV height and see what my wife says, lol!

 

[youngho]

That would be optimal, but i would either have to place the bookshelf low and angle it up or place the TV higher on the wall. That's why most center channels are horizontal designs to fit under the tv for the best tv placement. It's a world of tradeoffs...

Yes, almost every decision in life involves trade-offs. Fortunately, for this matter, I am susceptible to the ventriloquism effect, so this arrangement works for movies. For music, it's overwhelmingly stereo for me. The picture isn't up to date, but you get the idea.

 

[Thunder22]

Not all centers are created equal. If you feel your center is lacking, it is. Keep looking. "Timbre matched" is a marketing term.

 

[anotherhobby]

That's a great summary. I guess it's hard to quantify how much of a trade off one might expect to encounter getting a center channel speaker from a different brand just because it's a 3 way design. Ultimately, at this point I guess that's what I'm most interested in. Assuming the speaker has to be a normal, lowish-profile horizontally oriented center speaker is it better to get the same brand/model type or look for a coaxial or 3-way that's from a completely different company?

I had the Focal Aria 900 center channel at our previous residence. It's rear ported and a bit fussy about being backed up too close to a boundary or placed in any sort of cabinet space. If you have space behind it, it's decent, but if not I'd recommend something else. I guess the point of my earlier post is that I also have Focal Aria towers and they have no problems blending with a non matching speaker, at least when using room correction. I wasn't trying to suggest that my center channel was somehow a great option, and I don't know how that was a takeaway from my post, but whatever.

 

[Descartes]

How does a speaker have a timbre?

It goes to the post office!