Center speaker advice: Is timbre matching real?

[mj30250]

I don't even think timbre matching within product lines is a thing with manufacturers. If you actually look at their product lines, you'll typically see speakers of various sizes with similar drivers and aesthetics, all with xover points that are different, this phase shifts will be in different places. Some are 3 ways with multiple phase shifts, some are two ways with just one. Some of the larger speakers will have different baffle interactions that can greatly alter tonal balance in room. There's just way too much different between speakers of the same product line to suggest manufacturers have ever cared about timbre matching.

In general I would agree and said as much earlier. However, the Revel speakers under consideration would be an exception. The higher end KEF series which include dedicated centers would be as well. There are a handful of others not mentioned in the OP, but yes, the examples are relatively few.

In comparing the C426Be and F228Be specifically, the tweeter and midrange are identical, the crossovers between them are identical, the crossover between the midrange and the woofers are only 50Hz apart and at a point where you're going to be correcting for the room anyway. Frequency response, directivity/dispersion are also reasonably similar. It seems to me that these particular speakers were indeed explicitly designed to be "timbre matched".

Of course, no matter how well designed, you'll still have all of the extraneous factors inherent in arraying the drivers of your center speaker along a horizontal baffle rather than a vertical one. However, most domestic rooms offer no other choice, and as long as these compromises are understood, I'd still prefer to maintain as close a "match" as possible. Perhaps that's more cognitive bias talking than actual science, but it's worked well for me.

 

[Heinrich]

I find it funny that the idea of timbre matching in HT seems to have come from a time when most people in the hobby didn't really have a good grasp on dispersion and room interactions, so the push for it was coming from people/companies who didn't really have all the info to even make an assessment about their speakers timbre. I mean how many of these people knew their tweeters were going super wide while their woofers were narrowing and the effect that has on the tonal balance.



This ain't audio anecdote review.

Visual cues are the most important. If a voice walks through the scene from left to right passing the center, it will be noticed, if not blindfolded. Mission accomplished. Once audio is in focus, we first have to ask, where is the listening position. Is it at the movies, quite a bit shifted to one side, or is it at home all alone but right in the middle? In the latter case it may sound different—don‘t have to look anymore because the film runs in its seventh iteration.

Can‘t agree more on the notion that ‚matching‘ by brand or visual style, or same drivers even doesn‘t make sense, technically. A real match would be simply the same speaker.

 

[MattHooper]

I find it funny that the idea of timbre matching in HT seems to have come from a time when most people in the hobby didn't really have a good grasp on dispersion and room interactions, so the push for it was coming from people/companies who didn't really have all the info to even make an assessment about their speakers timbre. I mean how many of these people knew their tweeters were going super wide while their woofers were narrowing and the effect that has on the tonal balance.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the perspective from. These issues - differences in loudspeaker dispersion, design, the issues of mismatching speakers with different behavior, etc., - have been known for ages, discussed among enthusiasts and manufacturers. Timber matching is a thing.

This has already been posted in this thread:

Room Reflections & Human Adaptation for Small Room Acoustics

“All loudspeakers in a surround system need to be comparably good from a timbral perspective, and, if it is affordable, all the same.” - Floyd Toole

I don't even think timbre matching within product lines is a thing with manufacturers. If you actually look at their product lines, you'll typically see speakers of various sizes with similar drivers and aesthetics, all with xover points that are different, this phase shifts will be in different places. Some are 3 ways with multiple phase shifts, some are two ways with just one. Some of the larger speakers will have different baffle interactions that can greatly alter tonal balance in room. There's just way too much different between speakers of the same product line to suggest manufacturers have ever cared about timbre matching.

As I mentioned earlier, I use Hales Transcendence speakers for LCR in my surround system. Paul Hales is a knowledgable and talented speaker designer who very much cared about correct timbre.
I have Hales T1 monitors for L/R and the Hales T-Center channel speaker.
The Center speaker is a W–(MT)–W configuration, using the same SEAS drivers and crossover type as the LR speakers.

The literature for that centre speaker emphasizes: “By utilizing the same driver technology in the Cinema, we have ensured perfect timbre matching with all other speakers in the Transcendence family.”

I have found that claim to be accurate in my experience with these speakers.
I started with the Hales LR monitors and (since the Hales center channel was so rare to find on the used market) I tried a variety of other speakers from other manufacturers as a centre channel. There was a timber mismatch in all of them, which was always obvious, especially when sounds like voices were panned across the sound stage.

As soon as I got a hold of the Hales center speaker it integrated beautifully with the LR and the sound became seamless.

 

[Oddball]

Right, first rule in the book is the same speakers all around. Mostly not possible (flat panel = horizontal center) or what most would not consider as wise allocation of resources.

Center speaker was for ages the ugly bastard in most lines of products for many manufacturers. But as noted, they are exceptions. Have not looked into reasonably priced lines, but for the more expensive lines Revel BE, KEF R and Arendal 1728 are where they are trying to get a good match and size for horizontal centers. There are obviously other examples of good matching, but these seem to be most common.

They are all exceptional centers, with Revel BE, when on sale, being reasonable value. But then if you buy by kilo or pound, Arendal 1728 big center is still a bargain for its 80kg.

 

[MattHooper]

Can‘t agree more on the notion that ‚matching‘ by brand or visual style, or same drivers even doesn‘t make sense, technically. A real match would be simply the same speaker.

That perspective doesn’t seem to make sense.

If you buy loudspeakers from a competent loudspeaker company, then those manufacturers will be in a position to understand the design of their loudspeakers in order to match the performance across the LCR speakers as much as possible.

Of course you can have less competent speaker designers, but that hardly rules out that it can make sense to buy LCR speakers from a company who knows what they’re doing. (and because they know what they’re doing.)

It certainly worked out that way in my experience with my LCR Hales speakers - they work together as seamlessly as I have heard, and much better than any attempt to make a match with other brands.

 

[Heinrich]

That perspective doesn’t seem to make sense.

My first post raised the question, if the center takes part in the panning left/right, which, in my humble opinion, is essential. The forum didn‘t pick it up. I asked AI, which responded that for sure a sound effect may run from right through the center and ends left. So that all three share at times the same signal. I posted this result.

In the post you replied to, I reiterated the notion on panning. What do you think a panning left to right, involving the center speaker would look (sound) like, if the speakers‘ properties were different in one or the other aspect?

 

[Oddball]

My first post raised the question, if the center takes part in the panning left/right, which, in my humble opinion, is essential. The forum didn‘t pick it up. I asked AI, which responded that for sure a sound effect may run from right through the center and ends left. So that all three share at times the same signal. I posted this result.

In the post you replied to, I reiterated the notion on panning. What do you think a panning left to right, involving the center speaker would look (sound) like, if the speakers‘ properties were different in one or the other aspect?

Well it really depends. Some people here will die on graphs, but I would not. Matching SPL and distortion will be much more important. If you choose right, you will choose between the pair indicated above in the thread. If you feel adventurous and not really in need of justification, you can pair your LR that are important for stereo with something right for multichannel. I don't have a perfect timbre match, but know why.

 

[MattHooper]

My first post raised the question, if the center takes part in the panning left/right, which, in my humble opinion, is essential. The forum didn‘t pick it up. I asked AI, which responded that for sure a sound effect may run from right through the center and ends left. So that all three share at times the same signal. I posted this result.

In the post you replied to, I reiterated the notion on panning. What do you think a panning left to right, involving the center speaker would look (sound) like, if the speakers‘ properties were different in one or the other aspect?

I’m familiar with the nature of surround sound and how sounds can occupy the LCR speakers - my work in film sound design is produced in surround. (that was not necessary to work in film production to know this…. Anyone with the home theatre set up can notice how sound is placed in the loudspeakers).

But that’s a red herring to the issue I was talking to. I was questioning your claim that it doesn’t make sense to buy LCR speakers from the same brand. It certainly can make sense, when loudspeaker company knows how to make a good centre channel to match their other loudspeakers.

What do you think a panning left to right, involving the center speaker would look (sound) like, if the speakers‘ properties were different in one or the other aspect?

As I’ve already said in this thread: I was able to compare the results of using identical speakers (Hales T1 monitors) across the LCR for my surround system, versus using the Hales dedicated centre channel. The result in the first case was quite seamless, but using the centre channel speaker was almost as seamless (and ultimately preferable to me for the reasons I gave earlier).

This was a benefit of using a well designed centre channel from the same company who made the LR speakers I was using. They designed the centre channel specifically to blend well with the other speakers, which it did very well.

 

[MattHooper]

Well it really depends. Some people here will die on graphs, but I would not. Matching SPL and distortion will be much more important. If you choose right, you will choose between the pair indicated above in the thread. If you feel adventurous and not really in need of justification, you can pair your LR that are important for stereo with something right for multichannel. I don't have a perfect timbre match, but know why.

I chose mine as I always have by what I perceived in listening to them. I’m extremely picky about timbre. It’s my number one criteria.

The reason I chose the Hales speakers for my surround system because I had previously owned Hales T5 speakers in my stereo set up and always marvelled at how clean and pure and relaxed they sounded, and how convincing they were with the timber of voices and instruments.

And that’s what I wanted for my home theatre system as well. I wasn’t trying to satisfy any THX requirements in that regard, just my own preferences and goals. Some people think mostly about dynamics and frequency response for home theater - I cared most about pleasing/convincing timbre.

And I chose the surround speakers by ear in terms of how they seemed to have the same character and timber as the Hales.

It worked out great, a very seamless bubble of sound. And I get the same beauty of timbre from the surround system as I did from my Hales two channel set up. Even the simple sound of rain or trickling water can, for me, have that hair on arm raising recognition “that sounds exactly like water, not simply a sound effect!”

And music in the surrounds sound beautiful as well.

 

[Titurel]

I'm using a C426Be for my center channel with a pair of similar class L & R speaker from another manufacturer. After a few months experimenting, the three mesh together very well. From my experience (not just with this particular speaker set up) the most important factor in center channel integration is providing enough space between the 3 front channels that panned signals (e.g., dialog) can move smoothly between the channels. This may mean subtly rethinking your stereo set up.

In my experience, placing the L & R speakers as far apart as possible, while still providing an acceptable center image on stereo sources, provides enough space to accommodate a center channel successfully. Putting the L & R closer together may increase image specificity (for stereo), but such placements tend to make center channel level setting and placement hyper-critical. In cramped spaces, a phantom channel might well be the better solution.

N.b., my observations are for typical mid-field, living room listening, not for near-field listening or listening in dedicated multi-channel listening spaces, which typically do provide sufficient channel spacing.

 

[Thomas_A]

Should the results be matched at the ear or at the speaker?

 

[Heinrich]

But that’s a red herring to the issue I was talking to. I was questioning your claim that it doesn’t make sense to buy LCR speakers from the same brand.

O/k, besides my original argument, you read the secondary maybe wrong. I wasn‘t saying that it doesn‘t make sense to buy l/c/r from the same brand. The saying was that choosing by brand, visual design, same speaker drivers won‘t assure proper operation in regard to panning in surround mode.
Your anecdotal experience kind of confirms this. You name a few successful designs out of many as exemplary. Do they stand for the majority?

 

[Oddball]

I chose mine as I always have by what I perceived in listening to them. I’m extremely picky about timbre. It’s my number one criteria.

The reason I chose the Hales speakers for my surround system because I had previously owned Hales T5 speakers in my stereo set up and always marvelled at how clean and pure and relaxed they sounded, and how convincing they were with the timber of voices and instruments.

And that’s what I wanted for my home theatre system as well. I wasn’t trying to satisfy any THX requirements in that regard, just my own preferences and goals. Some people think mostly about dynamics and frequency response for home theater - I cared most about pleasing/convincing timbre.

And I chose the surround speakers by ear in terms of how they seemed to have the same character and timber as the Hales.

It worked out great, a very seamless bubble of sound. And I get the same beauty of timbre from the surround system as I did from my Hales two channel set up. Even the simple sound of rain or trickling water can, for me, have that hair on arm raising recognition “that sounds exactly like water, not simply a sound effect!”

And music in the surrounds sound beautiful as well.

Well you have been smarter or better than we most are. I chose my towers by love, for lack of a better word. There was no center to match it perfectly, but then C426 was the closest thing I had. Nothing to do with TXH as none of my speakers are certified - and I could not care less. Unfortunately I can't really think about timble if my center can't do 105dB peaks. If can, and timbre is finel that goes with that.

My surrounds are of different timbre, but given their qualities the do represent a good match. LCR path is a bit different that the surrounds.

 

[Andysu]

Well you have been smarter or better than we most are. I chose my towers by love, for lack of a better word. There was no center to match it perfectly, but then C426 was the closest thing I had. Nothing to do with TXH as none of my speakers are certified - and I could not care less. Unfortunately I can't really think about timble if my center can't do 105dB peaks. If can, and timbre is finel that goes with that.

My surrounds are of different timbre, but given their qualities the do represent a good match. LCR path is a bit different that the surrounds.

you missed that THX boat professional JBL experience by 26 years there not been real ones around for now its like kfc macs

 

[tineared]

I chose mine as I always have by what I perceived in listening to them. I’m extremely picky about timbre. It’s my number one criteria.

The reason I chose the Hales speakers for my surround system because I had previously owned Hales T5 speakers in my stereo set up and always marvelled at how clean and pure and relaxed they sounded, and how convincing they were with the timber of voices and instruments.

And that’s what I wanted for my home theatre system as well. I wasn’t trying to satisfy any THX requirements in that regard, just my own preferences and goals. Some people think mostly about dynamics and frequency response for home theater - I cared most about pleasing/convincing timbre.

And I chose the surround speakers by ear in terms of how they seemed to have the same character and timber as the Hales.

It worked out great, a very seamless bubble of sound. And I get the same beauty of timbre from the surround system as I did from my Hales two channel set up. Even the simple sound of rain or trickling water can, for me, have that hair on arm raising recognition “that sounds exactly like water, not simply a sound effect!”

And music in the surrounds sound beautiful as well.

This
My surround system is set up to optimize music reproduction, so it was a no brainer to buy the matching center channel speaker (NHT AC-2) which utilizes the same drivers as the mains (NHT 3.3s), minus the woofers
My surrounds are also NHT speakers, but I don't think the surrounds perfectly matching is quite as critical as the front three
The setup is more than satisfactory for watching movies
I'm trying to decide if I want to expand my system to play Atmos recordings, but I need to hear some good systems so I can decide. I have several Atmos music recordings and I can tell that I'm missing a lot of information. NHT is not the same caliber of company that it was under Ken Kantor, so I won't be utilizing NHTs for the height channels should I move in that direction. The KEF R8 metas seem to be a good match should the spirit move me

 

[Heinrich]

… Atmos recordings, but I need to hear some good systems …

Surround still has to convince me. I‘m not eager to spend as much on equipment, real estate and discipline when listening.

But isn‘t the same type for center and surrounds the only logical path? If one allows differences, how to mix the recording so that it would be as nice with another mismatch of arbitrary type? If tolerable differences are not yet defined, and so it seems, the only tolerable decision would be to avoid them altogether.

Anybody to define tolerable deviances between surround speakers—some reasoning attached, that is verififyable with all recordings of the past and future?

 

[Oddball]

you missed that THX boat professional JBL experience by 26 years there not been real ones around for now its like kfc macs

View attachment 489946

Right. Missed that completely. My fault.

 

[tineared]

Surround still has to convince me. I‘m not eager to spend as much on equipment, real estate and discipline when listening.

But isn‘t the same type for center and surrounds the only logical path? If one allows differences, how to mix the recording so that it would be as nice with another mismatch of arbitrary type? If tolerable differences are not yet defined, and so it seems, the only tolerable decision would be to avoid them altogether.

Anybody to define tolerable deviances between surround speakers—some reasoning attached, that is verififyable with all recordings of the past and future?

One of my first "hifi" moments was the first time I heard four Bose 901s play with authority in our local stereo shop. The sound was crisp, powerful and enveloping (quad)
I knew I loved surround from that moment on, although I never really cared for the mixing on the vast majority of quad recordings
Tolerable deviances between surround speakers will be determined by the taste of the owner/listener
On this site we use measuring to compare different products in a uniform and repeatable manner. That's the science part
But everyone has different tastes, so what sounds good to me may not sound good to you so there are no "rules" that must be followed
And nothing will ever be verifiable with all recordings because all recordings are not created equal

 

[MattHooper]

O/k, besides my original argument, you read the secondary maybe wrong. I wasn‘t saying that it doesn‘t make sense to buy l/c/r from the same brand. The saying was that choosing by brand, visual design, same speaker drivers won‘t assure proper operation in regard to panning in surround mode.
Your anecdotal experience kind of confirms this. You name a few successful designs out of many as exemplary. Do they stand for the majority?

OK, if you simply meant that, it’s not wise to blindly assume that a speaker manufacturer has done a good job with their centre channel, in terms of design designing to blend with the left and right speakers, I would certainly agree.

I thought you were making a stronger statement than that.

 

[Chrispy]

Ah!

I was only able to do that experiment with the Hales T1 monitors - because I ultimately decided I wanted to use them as my LR, and I found two pairs, so I was able to try a set up with the same T1 speakers doing L/C/R (all vertically oriented).

As I mentioned, the sound was quite seamless in terms of timbre. So it “worked” in that respect.

But once I tried the big T-center channel there is no going back. For one thing being a much bigger speaker with more drivers it added more bass depth and scale - to the degree that I did not feel the need for a subwoofer (which is good because I generally didn’t want to have to find a place for a subwoofer in my system). It also to my ears had slightly better nuance in terms of sound quality. Yet it was still seamless enough with the LR speakers. So I think overall things sounded better with that dedicated centre channel then with three of the same Hales monitors.

Now…. If we start talking about systems like Kal Rubinson who I believe has KEF Blades doing LCR duty, that’s a whole new ball game and I bet that sounds seamless and awesome.

Doesn't Kal have identical speakers all around? That's always nice if they're capable.