DALI Oberon Vokal Center Speaker Review

[Beershaun]

Man that horizontal directivity is rough. I still contend it's a flawed design for horizontal layout and hope manufacturers figure out how to resolve that for center speakers.

 

[375HP2482]

So do an awful lot of speakers with bad directivity...

Narrow directivity is not necessarily "bad."

With their V-DOSC, L-Acoustics pioneered the modern line arrays ubiquitous in concert sound, which are fundamentally large MTMs exploiting narrowing directivity.

 

[thewas]

Narrow directivity is not necessarily "bad."

Narrow truly isn't bad for some use cases, but it should be smooth and continuous, not just in a limited frequency region as in most such driver configurations.

 

[anphex]

I WILL NEVER GET IT!

Why won't manufacturers make this a 3 way speaker for smoother and wider dispersion if MTM has been proven countless times to be a bad solution for a center?!

You could probably even keep the design here, just change the case insides a little and of course change the crossover. Put the tweeter crossover at 1900 Hz, the right woofer at 400 Hz and the left woofer gets the rest. Since this speaker isn't designed for bass and big cinema, high levels shouldn't be expected anyways. Now pair this thing with a subwoofer with a crossover at 80-120 Hz and you have a solid center with wiiide dispersion a low distortion while staying symmetrical!

 

[375HP2482]

So, make this a 2.5 way?

That won't improve the horizontal much. I'll wager DALI investigated it.

 

[beagleman]

I WILL NEVER GET IT!

Why won't manufacturers make this a 3 way speaker for smoother and wider dispersion if MTM has been proven countless times to be a bad solution for a center?!

You could probably even keep the design here, just change the case insides a little and of course change the crossover. Put the tweeter crossover at 1900 Hz, the right woofer at 400 Hz and the left woofer gets the rest. Since this speaker isn't designed for bass and big cinema, high levels shouldn't be expected anyways. Now pair this thing with a subwoofer with a crossover at 80-120 Hz and you have a solid center with wiiide dispersion a low distortion while staying symmetrical!

Bad solution? A less than ideal solution for sure, but if it was truly THAT BAD, as you claim no one would purchase one, or all users would be extremely unhappy at how horrible they are. Why must everything less than ideal, but "Horrible and Unusable"
I think the average user, does not see an MTM as bad in any way honestly.
Did you not read my posts earlier?
I have one of my first center speakers a no name MTM in addition to a 2.5 way and a 3 way.

The old MTM is QUITE usable, but just does not have great dispersion and tonality if you get off axis a bit. YOU can still use it, still hear it, and still hear every word. Its NOT that bad of a thing. IN real room use you hear it somewhat better than the poorish dispersion leads you to believe.


The reason are numerous....to make MTM

Price. A 3 way is more expensive,
Usually 2 woofers in an MTM are more efficient and have better power handling.
3 ways tend to be a bit high size wise for MANY tv cabinets. That is why all are horizontal to begin with.

MTM exist because many manufacturers have found, that is what people will buy or want or something similar.. They are NOT horrible as some are claiming, just less than ideal. Again, why all the hyperbole about center speakers.

 

[MarcT]

Bad solution? A less than ideal solution for sure, but if it was truly THAT BAD, as you claim no one would purchase one, or all users would be extremely unhappy at how horrible they are. Why must everything less than ideal, but "Horrible and Unusable"
I think the average user, does not see an MTM as bad in any way honestly.
Did you not read my posts earlier?
I have one of my first center speakers a no name MTM in addition to a 2.5 way and a 3 way.

The old MTM is QUITE usable, but just does not have great dispersion and tonality if you get off axis a bit. YOU can still use it, still hear it, and still hear every word. Its NOT that bad of a thing. IN real room use you hear it somewhat better than the poorish dispersion leads you to believe.


The reason are numerous....to make MTM

Price. A 3 way is more expensive,
Usually 2 woofers in an MTM are more efficient and have better power handling.
3 ways tend to be a bit high size wise for MANY tv cabinets. That is why all are horizontal to begin with.

MTM excist because many manufacturers have found, that is what people will buy or want or something similar.. They are NOT horrible as some are claiming, just less than ideal. Again, why all the hyperbole about center speakers.

People letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

 

[anphex]

Bad solution? A less than ideal solution for sure, but if it was truly THAT BAD, as you claim no one would purchase one, or all users would be extremely unhappy at how horrible they are. Why must everything less than ideal, but "Horrible and Unusable"
I think the average user, does not see an MTM as bad in any way honestly.
Did you not read my posts earlier?
I have one of my first center speakers a no name MTM in addition to a 2.5 way and a 3 way.

The old MTM is QUITE usable, but just does not have great dispersion and tonality if you get off axis a bit. YOU can still use it, still hear it, and still hear every word. Its NOT that bad of a thing. IN real room use you hear it somewhat better than the poorish dispersion leads you to believe.


The reason are numerous....to make MTM

Price. A 3 way is more expensive,
Usually 2 woofers in an MTM are more efficient and have better power handling.
3 ways tend to be a bit high size wise for MANY tv cabinets. That is why all are horizontal to begin with.

MTM excist because many manufacturers have found, that is what people will buy or want or something similar.. They are NOT horrible as some are claiming, just less than ideal. Again, why all the hyperbole about center speakers.

Because centers are meant to be the voice anchor for any person in the room/cinema. If only the people in the middle of the cinema/room and the very very edges get a dipless sound, what is the point? A centers very purpose is dclean dispersion, other than that it is just a flat laying regular speaker. If dipersion and FR don't matter thwt much, we could just ditch centers and use L/R for voice, since it doesnt matter really it seems.

 

[beagleman]

Because centers are meant to be the voice anchor for any person in the room/cinema. If only the people in the middle of the cinema/room and the very very edges get a dipless sound, what is the point? A centers very purpose is dclean dispersion, other than that it is just a flat laying regular speaker. If dipersion and FR don't matter thwt much, we could just ditch centers and use L/R for voice, since it doesnt matter really it seems.

I think you are missing my point. I know exactly what centers are made to do. I own an MTM, a 2.5 way and a true 3 way version. All have had usage over the years, and all are still quite "Usable" to hear voices and center channel sounds. Not all are ideal or the same of course.

The flaws of an MTM do matter for sure, but just not to the extremes some are claiming.

In other words, there are also OTHER flaws of small living room theatre usage that are even bigger than the dispersion of a center speaker, yet they do not even get mentioned.


If one sits a good bit off axis of the center speaker in most small to moderate living rooms, they are then sitting DIRECTLY in front of ONLY the left or right main speaker, and that issue dwarfs the limited midrange dispersion of a cheaper MTM speaker, at least in my experience.

I have found that at a "PROPER DISTANCE" the limited MTM dispersion, is NOT as grand an issue as some claim.
Sitting far too close to the TV and speakers creates more of an issue for sure, but it creates other larger issues.


Small rooms and close sitting distance create multiple speaker issues, not limited to just MTM dispersion.

 

[beaRA]

If one sits a good bit off axis of the center speaker in most small to moderate living rooms, they are then sitting DIRECTLY in front of ONLY the left or right main speaker, and that issue dwarfs the limited midrange dispersion of a cheaper MTM speaker, at least in my experience.

Totally agree. Folks act like no center is better than an MTM center when the collapsing stereo image from sitting this far off-axis is much worse than the midrange dip from an MTM. I am an advocate for 3-way and coaxial center designs, but the hyperbole about MTMs does not benefit the credibility of that position.

 

[Theriverlethe]

Totally agree. Folks act like no center is better than an MTM center when the collapsing stereo image from sitting this far off-axis is much worse than the midrange dip from an MTM. I am an advocate for 3-way and coaxial center designs, but the hyperbole about MTMs does not benefit the credibility of that position.

Oh, definitely. My point was you can easily get perfect center imaging for one listener with stereo. The center anchors the image for off-axis listeners. Allegedly, it's also for aiding dialog clarity but I don't see how this would be an issue for a decent stereo setup with one listener.

 

[Rottmannash]

Oh, definitely. My point was you can easily get perfect center imaging for one listener with stereo. The center anchors the image for off-axis listeners. Allegedly, it's also for aiding dialog clarity but I don't see how this would be an issue for a decent stereo setup with one listener.

The center channel in multichannel use (Atmos, DTS, DD+) outputs far more than "dialog clarity"-when watching movies the majority of the output is from the center. In a "decent stereo setup" one wouldn't use a center anyway.

 

[375HP2482]

Seems strange that "the majority of the output is from the center" when the center, due to space limitations, is severely constrained in size and capabilities.

 

[beagleman]

Seems strange that "the majority of the output is from the center" when the center, due to space limitations, is severely constrained in size and capabilities.

I think this is mostly due to trying to replicate a movie theatre experience in a 12x20' living room.....

Most of us simply do not have dedicated huge rooms to create a theatre experience, and we use what tends to fit and works to make a decent enough set up.

I have been to a few dedicated theatre rooms and even they were compromises in one way or another.

In most normal living rooms, no type of center, be it MTM, 2.5 way or the best true 3 way, will still provide "Ideal" sound for several listeners spread out across a few chairs or couches, as the listeners on the far ends, due to the smallish room size will always be off axis with the center and FAR closer to the left or right speakers.

 

[dzerig]

I would be curious to see the effect of placing a fairly thick but not crazy, like a wool blanket 1/4 to 1/2 thick, around the hard surfaces on the sides, on the Kippel measurements. Would it minimize resonances in a good way, or a bad way, or a not noticable way?

 

[Theriverlethe]

I would be curious to see the effect of placing a fairly thick but not crazy, like a wool blanket 1/4 to 1/2 thick, around the hard surfaces on the sides, on the Kippel measurements. Would it minimize resonances in a good way, or a bad way, or a not noticable way?

The primary resonance is at 700Hz, a 1ft. 7in. wavelength, so my guess would be "a not noticeable way."

 

[Digital_Thor]

Also AFAIK somewhat brigh sound is a tailored feature of the brand

Yup. Auditioned the new Dali Epikore, before Christmas, and found exactly that the tweeter was definitely some dB's higher than everything else. Haven't got any measurements of those, sadly - but the Kore seems to be exactly like it. This whole cone/dome/ribbon combo, might have something to do with it.
https://www.hifinews.com/content/dali-kore-loudspeaker-lab-report

I must say, that the speaker sounded way better than almost all other high-end speakers I've ever listened too - if you compensated for that "added" tweeter response.
Could be, that the designers aimed for both off-axis, and the fact that nature is not always nice to people at elevated ages, which finally have the money for speakers like these. They could have added a small button with a tweeter attenuation on the rear, like quite a few speakers offer... or simply give it some EQ.

 

[thewas]

On above example though the tweeter level isn't really increased but just the presence region a bit subdued like on many "euphonically" tuned hifi loudspeakers.

Also most Dali loudspeakers are tuned with the tweeter to be the flattest at around 30° so to be not toed in for a wider and more enveloping soundstage.

 

[Warlequin]

So is this centre speaker tested as such? As in, if you say it lacks bass without EQ, do you mean low - mid frequencies? Because bass is usually not the main priority of a centre, it's mid and very much high.

 

[SorenTyson]

So is this centre speaker tested as such? As in, if you say it lacks bass without EQ, do you mean low - mid frequencies? Because bass is usually not the main priority of a centre, it's mid and very much high.

I wonder about this too. Most use cases with a center is including a sub, so could be interesting to see them tested with a filter at 80hz