Emotiva Airmotiv C2+ Center Channel Speaker (review by Erin)

[sweetchaos]

Thanks to @hardisj for his review:

Emotiva Airmotiv C2+ Center Channel Speaker Review

Emotiva Airmotiv C2+ Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

Erin's conclusion:

I think what you’re paying for here is output in lieu of linearity. This speaker is big and imposing. It has plenty of volume (no pun intended) to make most home theater enthusiasts content. Though, the response linearity could use work but that’s commonplace with center channel speakers, unfortunately. The price is a great intro as well. Just mind where you sit; don’t sit too far to the side or too high above the tweeter.

Discuss!

 

[sweetchaos]

As Erin wrote:

I can’t help but think that the C2+'s little brother, the C1+ would perform better in this regard (related to peak/dip in 1.5khz) simply because it has only a single midrange.

I hope so! If only C1+ was in stock...

I've setup an automatic notification system, which will monitor that page and let me know when it's back in stock.

 

[Sancus]

This has comparable directivity to the Revel C10 and obviously way more output and bass, which I think still makes it one of the better centers we've seen reviewed. But yeah, lets see that C1+

 

[Shazb0t]

Eh, that horizontal directivity due to the double 3" mids is pretty nasty looking. I would not purchase this over the C1+. They should definitely address the lobing issue in the next revision. Maybe one 5.25" mid along with a larger AMT for additional power handling and max SPL headroom.

 

[alex-z]

Designer got to 1500Hz and took a holiday. Pretty sad considering we know from the B1+ and T2+ they can design something better.

 

[beaRA]

Glad to see my reason to recommend the C1+ over the C2+ confirmed. Those dual midrange drivers ruin the horizontal dispersion advantage of a 3-way design.

 

[Dal1as]

Eh, that horizontal directivity due to the double 3" mids is pretty nasty looking. I would not purchase this over the C1+. They should definitely address the lobing issue in the next revision. Maybe one 5.25" mid along with a larger AMT for additional power handling and max SPL headroom.

Yeah the horizontal dispersion and frequency response is horrible. Wow. The Monolith 3 way has similar output but neutral with good horizontal dispersion. Hell I'd bet the Klipsch rc64 outperforms this.

 

[dualimas]

A bit disapointed by this, rly wonder how the monolith thx 365c compares to this, since its the main competitior in the price class

 

[Dal1as]

A bit disapointed by this, rly wonder how the monolith thx 365c compares to this, since its the main competitior in the price class

It was tested over at audioholics and did really well. I can not get over how little the Monolith THX speakers are talked about with their price to performance. It's baffling.

Monoprice Monolith THX-365T Mini-Tower and THX-365C Center Speaker Review

The Monolith THX-365T and 365C are some of the most inexpensive THX-Ultra certified home audio speakers to ever have been produced. How do they perform? Read on to find out.

www.audioholics.com

Look at the horizontal dispersion of the center.

The reviewer may have put the eyes in there I think. lol

 

[abdo123]

what's the point of having two mid-ranges? they literally shot themselves in the foot.

 

[beaRA]

what's the point of having two mid-ranges? they literally shot themselves in the foot.

I agree with Erin's assessment:

I think what you’re paying for here is output in lieu of linearity.

Emotiva chose to tradeoff dispersion for output which might make sense for some customers with a long listening distance.

 

[abdo123]

Emotiva chose to tradeoff dispersion for output which might make sense for some customers with a long listening distance.

That's not how you do this though, we don't add a second tweeter for higher output.

they should sacrifice linearity for sensitivity / Xmax increase, because linearity is already sacrificed this way anyway.

I think they just wanted to recycle the mid-range from C1+

 

[hardisj]

we don't add a second tweeter for higher output.

Because baffle step doesn't effect the tweeter. But it does for midrange. You gotta make back that 6dB loss somehow and that's why you see multiple woofers/mids in many designs.

 

[abdo123]

Because baffle step doesn't effect the tweeter. But it does for midrange. You gotta make back that 6dB loss somehow and that's why you see multiple woofers/mids in many designs.

Why didn’t they at least vertically align the mids?

People who want smaller centre speakers could easily get the C1+.

They could have resolved this situation in so many ways to be honest.

I’m an absolute noob when it comes to speaker design and i can already think of multiple ways to fix this.

 

[Dal1as]

Why didn’t they at least vertically align the mids?

People who want smaller centre speakers could easily get the C1+.

They could have resolved this situation in so many ways to be honest.

I’m an absolute noob when it comes to speaker design and i can already think of multiple ways to fix this.

That's actually one of the 1st questions I had when I 1st saw the c2. I'm not a speaker designer either but I know how sound works. Maybe to keep the cabinet slimmer? But they could have used a good 2 inch mid like the Monolith?

 

[thewas]

Because baffle step doesn't effect the tweeter. But it does for midrange. You gotta make back that 6dB loss somehow and that's why you see multiple woofers/mids in many designs.

Although a good loudspeaker engineer rather uses woofers with lower sensitivity so that the woofer sum has the lowest SPL as for the mids and tweeters attenuating networks can be used, or make such only as an active design.

Why didn’t they at least vertically align the mids?

That would have messed up the vertical directivity even more, no real option.

 

[abdo123]

Although a good loudspeaker engineer rather uses woofers with lower sensitivity so that the woofer sum has the lowest SPL as for the mids and tweeters attenuating networks can be used, or make such only as an active design.


That would have messed up the vertical directivity even more, no real option.

Please walk me through this, MTMs usually have great vertical directivity.

 

[thewas]

Please walk me through this, MTMs usually have great vertical directivity.

Not really, unless they fullfil the D'Appolito requirements regarding driver spacing which almost none do, not even Mr. Appolitos own designs. Was also thinking about TMM when reading your comment, the MTM would make it a bit better truth to be said.

 

[abdo123]

Not really,

Are you sure you haven't got vertical and horizontal mixed up right now? Almost every MTM design measured here has excellent vertical directivity.

 

[thewas]

Are you sure you haven't got vertical and horizontal mixed up right now? Almost every MTM design measured here has excellent vertical directivity.

Could there be a misunderstanding?

I mean that the soundbar is

----M----
W--T--W
----M----

similar to a MTM standing loudspeaker which usually has lobes in the vertical directivity. The here often measured M-T-M soundbars have smooth vertical directivity as the MTM arrangement is in the horizontal direction but their problems show in the horizontal directivity.