[bigshot]

My crossover is at 80Hz. I tried lower, because even though I'm using bass management, I'm still using full range speakers. But it seemed more problematic to smooth out the transition from speaker to sub. I might have gotten it if I had kept working at it, but it was easier to just stick with 80 because that was working fine.

I much prefer 5.1 sound to quad because I have a relatively large listening room that doubles as a screening room. My screen is ten feet wide so the left and right are about 15 feet apart. Without a center channel I would have a big dip in the center. A lot of multichannel rock music uses the center channel for vocals, and movies use it for dialogue, so it's pretty important. I actually would like to have a center channel in the rear if I could.

I have smaller rear speakers in the rear too. Planning on upgrading them soon, but I need to hire someone to come out and bolt them to the wall. Bigger speakers are always better.

I find most quad mixes stick to pushing the sound out to the corners of the room or the sides. That might have just been the mixing style back then. I don't know. The best 5.1 mixes I've heard push sound out into the middle of the room in a coherent dimensional sound field. I don't think you could do that with quad unless the room was relatively small and the speakers were positioned close to the listener. That wouldn't work in my particular room. It's too big. I don't think with quad you would want to be in the exact center of the speakers because that would be the focus of all the reflection in the room. Not sure about that.

That's not what I said. If you want to hear what they heard, and it is your option if you don't, you need to calibrate to the same standards. You've already pleased the creators if you bought their product.

It's impossible for me to do that because I have a living room to work with, not a sound studio. It has to function as a room to entertain in my home. Compromises have to be made for the sake of livability. I've certainly bought enough product... 20-25,000 records, 10-15,000 CDs, at least as many DVDs and blu-rays. They should be pleased as punch!

 

[Strangelove424]

My crossover is at 80Hz. I tried lower, because even though I'm using bass management, I'm still using full range speakers. But it seemed more problematic to smooth out the transition from speaker to sub. I might have gotten it if I had kept working at it, but it was easier to just stick with 80 because that was working fine.

Same here. Anything over 80 seems to get a little directional. The receiver's built in calibrator suggested 60, and I tried 60 for a while, but it just didn't sound as clean.

I much prefer 5.1 sound to quad because I have a relatively large listening room that doubles as a screening room. My screen is ten feet wide so the left and right are about 15 feet apart. Without a center channel I would have a big dip in the center. A lot of multichannel rock music uses the center channel for vocals, and movies use it for dialogue, so it's pretty important. I actually would like to have a center channel in the rear if I could.

I have smaller rear speakers in the rear too. Planning on upgrading them soon, but I need to hire someone to come out and bolt them to the wall. Bigger speakers are always better.

I find most quad mixes stick to pushing the sound out to the corners of the room or the sides. That might have just been the mixing style back then. I don't know. The best 5.1 mixes I've heard push sound out into the middle of the room in a coherent dimensional sound field. I don't think you could do that with quad unless the room was relatively small and the speakers were positioned close to the listener. That wouldn't work in my particular room. It's too big. I don't think with quad you would want to be in the exact center of the speakers because that would be the focus of all the reflection in the room. Not sure about that.

Yes, my mains are about halfway the distance of yours, so the stereo soundstage is not nearly as demanding. I have a relatively small sweet spot though. I can get away without a center channel I think pretty easily, but the downside is that off-axis voices lose their direction. But that's the case with stereo too, which is still the vast majority of my music.

I don't think bigger speakers ever hurt really. It's not so much because of size, but just to have multiple woofers and a crossover, just to get some smoother blending going on in the rear. And with the bookshelves sitting on impromptu stands, they're still taking the same footprint a taller speaker would. I'm also kind of curious about atmos to get a smaller sized floor stander to create a taller soundstage (there's some decent entry level speakers that have it) but I haven't heard an atmos system in person and am still leery about the idea of having to upgrade receiver for what could be the hifi flavor of the month. But some very respectable speaker engineers have implemented it with great enthusiasm.

Seating position with quad I fear would be a spectacular pain. I could easily end up recreating this experiment. The worst part is, it seems that different wavelengths are effected at different distances, so what might work for one frequency might not work for another. Still think it might be worth a shot in my particular setup though, and I've always thought the bookshelves sounded barky compared so the mains, so it might not be a total loss if 4.1 is a failure.

 

[bigshot]

My room is kind of unique... It's all wood panelling with a peak roof and big carved rafter beams. The ceiling is quite high. It makes Atmos totally out of the question, but it does allow me to adjust some things to increase the perceived height. There is a mantle over the fireplace that is about ear level standing up. It's perfect for a center channel speaker, and the fact that it's a little bit too high acts as the perfect compromise for height, because it puts the center channel precisely behind the center of the drop down screen. In the rear, there isn't a lot of space down low, so I put the rears up just above the height of the door angled down. This gives the sound a sort of tipped sound perspective like having a balcony in a concert hall above you in the rear. With the height of the center channel it tends to raise the overall sound field so it still sounds good standing up.

For the front mains, I have two sets on an A and B speaker out from the AVR. The big box 6 way speakers with the 15 inch woofers are about 15 feet apart about six feet in from the back wall. Then I have a second set of JBL towers that are about 2 feet from the back wall around 10 feet apart. The JBLs are a little more midrange focused, so it fills in between the mains and center well with the dialogue in movies, but it's still full enough to carry a realistic soundstage in music. The front speakers are arranged in a V shaped pattern horizontally, and triangulate vertically to the center channel too. It's a long way from being kosher according to the diagrams you see in home theater how to manuals, but in this particular room it works much better than a traditional speaker arrangement would. I spent some time experimenting and chatting with my theater installer before I decided on this layout.

I almost never play stereo music in two channel any more. With the wide spread of the mains and the second set of towers closer in, it sounds OK as far as a phantom center, but my Yamaha AVR has a stereo to 5.1 DSP that makes stereo sound much better focused and a lot bigger as 5.1. When I play mono recordings, I either use that stereo to 5.1 DSP or another one of the Yamaha DSPs designed after the acoustics of the Vienna Musikverein. That one is especially good for Toscanini recordings made in the notoriously dry Studio 8H. It gives them a nice front placement with enough air around to almost feel like stereo. I'm totally convinced that the future of high end audio is going to lie in signal processing and multichannel, not just extending the decimal point on purity further.

I can dig up a photo of my room if you are interested.

 

[Strangelove424]

The center speaker placement is a great idea, pretty much how the theaters do it. When I set up the system I tried to follow THX theatre specs as much as possible. That doesn't mean the meaningless THX badge the brands pay for, just that the system reproduces the spectrum as faithfully as you can get it to, and that things are set to certain ratios of distance and angles as they recommend, like the screen occupying 30 degrees of visual space and being within 15 degrees of straight horizontal to eliminate neck strain. (I may have fudged those numbers, but more or less) Some of the recommendations are just for comfort factors. And their recommended crossover setting is actually 80hz, so they seem to have a good grip on surround performance.

It's interesting to me how music and film overlap - or don't sometimes - in surround sound. But you can get very creative with it too. There's a standard, sure, but once you understand the aims of the the standard, you can customize. For instance, you could easily use a couple bookshelf speakers in place of a center. I don't have the room for that in my situation, but you might be able to experiment with that since you have a big pull-down screen and entire shelf. Once I set up a surround system that sounded good to me for music and movies, I never visited a theatre ever again. No need for horrible distortion at almost every frequency and fuzzy picture. Not to mention the prices, and the odd odors.

I think I saw a picture of your setup a while ago but I don't remember you having a projection screen or quite that many speakers. I'm always down to look at photos of people's setups, computer headphone rigs or giant theatres, and anything in between. I'm kind of curious what your system looks like in its current state, if it's no bother.

 

[pinnahertz]

It's impossible for me to do that because I have a living room to work with, not a sound studio. It has to function as a room to entertain in my home. Compromises have to be made for the sake of livability.

"Home THX", which became THX Ultra2 is designed to work in a typical home, not a studio. It depends on your compromises, of course.

My point was, if you aren't matching the creative environment you might want to be cautious about criticizing their mix. I know what "everyone" is saying about Sgt. Pepper, and I'm not saying they're wrong, but a few dB here and there can actually make quite a difference.

I've certainly bought enough product... 20-25,000 records, 10-15,000 CDs, at least as many DVDs and blu-rays. They should be pleased as punch!

Anyone who has spend that much on music and video should be given free media for the rest of his life.

 

[pinnahertz]

I find most quad mixes stick to pushing the sound out to the corners of the room or the sides. That might have just been the mixing style back then. I don't know. The best 5.1 mixes I've heard push sound out into the middle of the room in a coherent dimensional sound field. I don't think you could do that with quad unless the room was relatively small and the speakers were positioned close to the listener. That wouldn't work in my particular room. It's too big. I don't think with quad you would want to be in the exact center of the speakers because that would be the focus of all the reflection in the room. Not sure about that.

The LP for Quad/4-channel was dead center equidistant from all speakers. It is one of the big failings of that plan. The LP for 2-channel stereo is fairly small, equidistant from both speakers, but on a line centered and perpendicular to a line between the speakers. The LP for qual is a single mid point, resulting in the smallest sweet spot of any multichannel plan. 5.1 actually has a very wide sweet spot by comparison because the center speaker locks the center image, which is no longer dependant on a phantom image.

Some quad remixes do include the center, and some are not remixes, just re-releases. Many quad mixes were definitely meant to put you "in the band". It made the surround effect obvious, and frankly, subtle doesn't sell.

 

[pinnahertz]

The center speaker placement is a great idea, pretty much how the theaters do it. When I set up the system I tried to follow THX theatre specs as much as possible. That doesn't mean the meaningless THX badge the brands pay for, just that the system reproduces the spectrum as faithfully as you can get it to, and that things are set to certain ratios of distance and angles as they recommend, like the screen occupying 30 degrees of visual space and being within 15 degrees of straight horizontal to eliminate neck strain. (I may have fudged those numbers, but more or less) Some of the recommendations are just for comfort factors. And their recommended crossover setting is actually 80hz, so they seem to have a good grip on surround performance.

The big failing of THX was that the badge came to be percieved as meaningless. They badged too many different products, and people didn't understand what it all meant. Then they refused to publish the full specifications that stuff had to meet to carry the badge, and expected consumers to just trust the badge.

Frankly, Ultra2 product, particularly speakers, do have some very important specs to meet, and that badge is not meaningless. The Select product, not so much. They differentiated the two based on room size and system cost, which may not have been completely wrong, but to think you needed 3000cu ft or larger rooms to use Ultra2 was also an error. The benefits of Ultra2 are important in smaller rooms too.

It's interesting to me how music and film overlap - or don't sometimes - in surround sound. But you can get very creative with it too. There's a standard, sure, but once you understand the aims of the the standard, you can customize. For instance, you could easily use a couple bookshelf speakers in place of a center. I don't have the room for that in my situation, but you might be able to experiment with that since you have a big pull-down screen and entire shelf.

The center speaker represents a huge gap in understanding for most people. The "standard" is to use identical speakers for LCR, and Ultra2 speakers are designed to minimize common surface reflections in a typical room while maintaining wide horizontal dispersion to cover all seats, with smooth off-axis response. The idea was that people in general weren't going to acoustically treat their livingrooms, so Ultra2 speakers deal with the biggest reflections with dispersion/directivity control.

When you move away from that with a different, non-matching "center speaker", you break the standard significantly and isolate the center speaker as a unique sound source apart from the front L/R sound field. Using two speakers for the center creates a rather unpredictable, but heavily lobed dispersion pattern with mid-band pattern being mostly dispersed vertically for side-by-side speakers. That just makes things worse. There's a reason for the standard, if variation from it actually improved the situation those variables would have been included in the standard.

 

[pinnahertz]

I'm totally convinced that the future of high end audio is going to lie in signal processing and multichannel, not just extending the decimal point on purity further.

That might be true if only signal processing wasn't such a dirty word in the high end. Remember, these people think 2-channel stereo is "pure" rather than viewing it as the huge compromise it is.

 

[Strangelove424]

The big failing of THX was that the badge came to be percieved as meaningless. They badged too many different products, and people didn't understand what it all meant. Then they refused to publish the full specifications that stuff had to meet to carry the badge, and expected consumers to just trust the badge.

I have respect for what Lucas was trying to do originally, but the failing of THX was its introduction into consumer space, a blatant cash grab, where room implementation and installation could not be guaranteed to any degree whatsoever. When they began certifying satellite systems that operate with high crossovers and big frequency gaps that didn't meet original spec, the charade was over. I had respect for Lucas' original intention, but that required rigorous implementation. Ultimately, what I'll miss most is that "deep note" sound effect. Supposedly that's a crescendo of all the frequencies in the spectrum at once. It was an awesome sound effect. But besides a spec anyone can research and implement, there's little value in a cool sound effect and some stickers.

Frankly, Ultra2 product, particularly speakers, do have some very important specs to meet, and that badge is not meaningless. The Select product, not so much. They differentiated the two based on room size and system cost, which may not have been completely wrong, but to think you needed 3000cu ft or larger rooms to use Ultra2 was also an error. The benefits of Ultra2 are important in smaller rooms too.

The center speaker represents a huge gap in understanding for most people. The "standard" is to use identical speakers for LCR, and Ultra2 speakers are designed to minimize common surface reflections in a typical room while maintaining wide horizontal dispersion to cover all seats, with smooth off-axis response. The idea was that people in general weren't going to acoustically treat their livingrooms, so Ultra2 speakers deal with the biggest reflections with dispersion/directivity control.

I have to admit, I have no idea what Ultra 2 is.

When you move away from that with a different, non-matching "center speaker", you break the standard significantly and isolate the center speaker as a unique sound source apart from the front L/R sound field. Using two speakers for the center creates a rather unpredictable, but heavily lobed dispersion pattern with mid-band pattern being mostly dispersed vertically for side-by-side speakers. That just makes things worse. There's a reason for the standard, if variation from it actually improved the situation those variables would have been included in the standard.

Assuming you can get bookshelves from the same line of speakers for natural blending (I am still capable of doing this through the marketplace time machine of Ebay) it seems like you are saying one should just do something because that's the way it's always been done. I am no speaker genius, but have discussed the central speaker issue with Andrew Jones, who I would consider if not a genius to be very smart, is an MIT graduate, and lead engineer for Pioneer's speaker division. He had very negative views about the dispersion characteristics of a typical woofer-tweeter-woofer horizontal alignment for central speakers, and felt it was a compromise for the fact we all have big screen TVs. So I don't quite agree with the idea that "if variation from it actually improved the situation those variables would have been included in the standard" for the simple fact that speaker engineers have to deal with our TVs, and are plainly sacrificing audio quality for a visual requirement most people have to deal with. If I could fit matching bookshelves up front to replace the single central speaker, and amp it enough, I would personally do it. It would be the same amount of mid range woofers with the addition of another tweeter, with better dispersion patterns and a wider dialogue stage. I'm always turning up the center channel anyway.

 

[castleofargh]

The big failing of THX was that the badge came to be percieved as meaningless. They badged too many different products, and people didn't understand what it all meant. Then they refused to publish the full specifications that stuff had to meet to carry the badge, and expected consumers to just trust the badge.

I thought you were talking about MQA for a second.

 

[pinnahertz]

I have respect for what Lucas was trying to do originally, but the failing of THX was its introduction into consumer space, a blatant cash grab, where room implementation and installation could not be guaranteed to any degree whatsoever.

You've missed the entire point of THX in the home. The systems were specified to work in the typical room and deal with typical room problems.

When they began certifying satellite systems that operate with high crossovers and big frequency gaps that didn't meet original spec, the charade was over.

I would sort of agree, but that's what Select was all about. It was an effort to certify more product at a more approachable price point, but you can't do that and keep up with the original specs, so they compromised, and shouldn't have. THX had a very difficult business model.

I had respect for Lucas' original intention, but that required rigorous implementation.

Again, there were several levels of THX. It was the rigorous implementation, fully certified THX home theaters, that was first to go. Too small and too high a market to sustain the organization. They stopped certifying home theaters as a result. That didn't mean you couldn't build one and have a THX Tech verify that you hit the specs, though.

Ultimately, what I'll miss most is that "deep note" sound effect. Supposedly that's a crescendo of all the frequencies in the spectrum at once. It was an awesome sound effect. But besides a spec anyone can research and implement, there's little value in a cool sound effect and some stickers.

Well, you can still have the effect and never own anything THX certified. Deep Note was the creation of Andy Moorer, and has an interesting history. It is actually 30 "voices", not "all frequencies". There's also a new version as of a year or so ago. The effect didn't come with certification anyway.

I have to admit, I have no idea what Ultra 2 is.

It would help you to understand what Ultra2 is before dismissing THX as a worthless money-grab. It's the current version of the original Home THX spec which was developed to bring the THX theatrical experience into the home, considering the constraints of the home. It's a very detailed specification that includes speakers (many design goals), and electronics, as well as projection, displays, etc. The specs are very hard and expensive to hit. Certification for an AVR, for example, took at least a week, likely two weeks of testing, and generated a printed report of over 200 pages. The failure of one parameter kicked the entire product out for redesign. THX certification of Ultra2 produce was not trivial at all, and very expensive to accomplish. But ever parameter was chosen for its contribution to the total system performance, none were unrealizable, all have practical application to the home system. Today you can hit many of the THX parameters with decently designed stuff out of the box, but the speaker performance parameters remain the difficult ones to achieve in non-certified product.

Assuming you can get bookshelves from the same line of speakers for natural blending (I am still capable of doing this through the marketplace time machine of Ebay) it seems like you are saying one should just do something because that's the way it's always been done.

"The way it always been done?" Hardly. In fact, the THX way has hardly ever been done, a rarity actually. That would be the worst reason to do something anyway. The reason THX exists is to improve system performance by developing specifications that address each problem in the system. That's just good applied engineering.

The point of matching LCR speakers is a unified timbre across the front, along with even full spectrum coverage of all seats. Just using the same "line" or "brand" of speakers won't do that. They must be identical. Even then, positional differences change their individual timbre somewhat, but you're not even close using completely different speaker designs for the center.

I am no speaker genius, but have discussed the central speaker issue with Andrew Jones, who I would consider if not a genius to be very smart, is an MIT graduate, and lead engineer for Pioneer's speaker division. He had very negative views about the dispersion characteristics of a typical woofer-tweeter-woofer horizontal alignment for central speakers, and felt it was a compromise for the fact we all have big screen TVs.

Yes, that is the problem.

So I don't quite agree with the idea that "if variation from it actually improved the situation those variables would have been included in the standard" for the simple fact that speaker engineers have to deal with our TVs, and are plainly sacrificing audio quality for a visual requirement most people have to deal with.

Then you are actually agreeing with me. The variations from ideal degrade performance. The "center speaker" concept is a compromise that favors physical and visual aspects at the expense of performance.

If I could fit matching bookshelves up front to replace the single central speaker, and amp it enough, I would personally do it. It would be the same amount of mid range woofers with the addition of another tweeter, with better dispersion patterns and a wider dialogue stage. I'm always turning up the center channel anyway.

Watch out for speakers with more than one tweeter or woofer. If you're expecting wide horizontal coverage, the tweeters must be stacked vertically, and the crossover designed for even wide coverage. Horizontally arranged speakers will widend coverage vertically and narrow it horizontally, but not evenly across the spectrum unless the crossover net is tweaked.

 

[Strangelove424]

Well, you can still have the effect and never own anything THX certified. Deep Note was the creation of Andy Moorer, and has an interesting history. It is actually 30 "voices", not "all frequencies". There's also a new version as of a year or so ago. The effect didn't come with certification anyway.

I do! Somewhere on my computer is a wav of it. Come to think of it, maybe I should make it my startup sound.

You've missed the entire point of THX in the home. The systems were specified to work in the typical room and deal with typical room problems.

It would help you to understand what Ultra2 is before dismissing THX as a worthless money-grab. It's the current version of the original Home THX spec which was developed to bring the THX theatrical experience into the home, considering the constraints of the home. It's a very detailed specification that includes speakers (many design goals), and electronics, as well as projection, displays, etc. The specs are very hard and expensive to hit. Certification for an AVR, for example, took at least a week, likely two weeks of testing, and generated a printed report of over 200 pages. The failure of one parameter kicked the entire product out for redesign. THX certification of Ultra2 produce was not trivial at all, and very expensive to accomplish. But ever parameter was chosen for its contribution to the total system performance, none were unrealizable, all have practical application to the home system. Today you can hit many of the THX parameters with decently designed stuff out of the box, but the speaker performance parameters remain the difficult ones to achieve in non-certified product.

You seem to have heavy bias for Ultra2. I'm sure it performs well, but you insist on promoting the THX brand to fellow forum goers post after post. We both know someone could set up a THX worthy system without THX stickers, and save a lot of money doing that if they know what they're doing. So I'll be quite direct here, do you in any way sell or distribute THX certified products?

The point of matching LCR speakers is a unified timbre across the front, along with even full spectrum coverage of all seats. Just using the same "line" or "brand" of speakers won't do that. They must be identical. Even then, positional differences change their individual timbre somewhat, but you're not even close using completely different speaker designs for the center.

Lines of speakers are released specifically for the purpose of matching tone. You are trying to undermine the very premise of surround sound packages. Absolute identical LCR is impossible for most because of TVs. I can't stick a tower right in front of my TV. Hence the compromise of horizontal centers. I already talked about this.

Then you are actually agreeing with me. The variations from ideal degrade performance. The "center speaker" concept is a compromise that favors physical and visual aspects at the expense of performance.

Come on now, that's just word twisting and semantics.

Watch out for speakers with more than one tweeter or woofer. If you're expecting wide horizontal coverage, the tweeters must be stacked vertically, and the crossover designed for even wide coverage. Horizontally arranged speakers will widend coverage vertically and narrow it horizontally, but not evenly across the spectrum unless the crossover net is tweaked.

Here this is an interesting article: http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/center-channel-designs-1

Notice the final paragraph:

"If you absolutely want to use identical matching vertical LCRs or towers and don't want to block your image, consider an acoustically transparent screen which will allow you to place the center channel speaker behind it with minimal degradation of sound quality. Alternatively, if your theater room is small and doesn't require large high output speakers, respectably good performance can be achieved by using identical two-way bookshelf speakers all vertically oriented which should still be small enough to tuck below your screen or display without causing any visual ugliness."

 

[bigshot]

The big failing of THX was that the badge came to be percieved as meaningless. They badged too many different products, and people didn't understand what it all meant. Then they refused to publish the full specifications that stuff had to meet to carry the badge, and expected consumers to just trust the badge..

That's pretty much how he explained it to me. He said that whenever he sets up a theater, he always follows all the guidelines as close as he can anyway. But if he certifies it, he has to submit a bunch of paperwork and pay a licensing fee. That costs more for basically just a certificate.

My particular room has a lot of compromises for practical reasons. The sound can't be focused on a single listening position. My seating is set up in a horseshoe facing the screen, with people sitting very close to the speakers on the side. It has to disperse to the sides without a lot of reflections. I found that putting the speakers in a horseshoe facing the couches in a horseshoe, it worked pretty well from any seating position. Likewise, raising the center and rears pulled the soundstage up higher. The important thing to me is that the room serve the function of a living room well when the screen is up and the stereo turned off. I didn't want one of those home theaters with the big leather lounge chairs lined up in rows all facing the screen. The installer worked for quite a while working out the angles to make it work well. The wide angle lens distorts this a lot, but it gives you the idea.

The mains on left and right are custom made 15 inch 6 way studio monitors from the mid 70s. JBL towers alongside the fireplace. Klipsch Reference center channel. Sunfire 12 inch True Sub on the right. The screen is behind the beam with the rifle on it. It's ten feet wide and comes just to the tops of the JBL towers and about 3 feet from the size walls.. On the right under the swordfish's sword is a 1924 Brunswick Cortez phonograph. The rears are Klipsch bookshelves. That is the last element up for upgrading. My media server runs off a Mac Mini with 70TB of storage on five disk arrays. The amp is a Yamaha AVR, and the player is an Oppo BDP103D. Directly over where this picture was taken is the projector attached to the beam above the center couch. It's an Epson 7500ub.

By the way, even though I use a bunch of different types of speakers here, I've EQed them all channel by channel to tonally match the handoff from speaker to speaker. They're all capable of producing a very high volume level with all the important frequencies balanced. It's a lot easier to work with all the same make and model of speaker, but it isn't totally necessary. Varying vertical and horizontal helps disperse too. The soundstage with this particular arrangement is remarkably large while still being properly placed. I have a movie where a character walks from the right channel to the center to the left across the screen while speaking and the handoff is perfect and seamless. Multichannel mixes with realistic soundstage like the new Roy Orbison B&W Night remix have pinpoint accuracy. You can close your eyes and point to every musician on the screen.

 

[pinnahertz]

I do! Somewhere on my computer is a wav of it. Come to think of it, maybe I should make it my startup sound.

The 5.1 version is way better.

You seem to have heavy bias for Ultra2. I'm sure it performs well, but you insist on promoting the THX brand to fellow forum goers post after post.

I have an appreciation for well engineered solutions to common problems. Nobody else has addressed these issues in such a comprehensive manner.

We both know someone could set up a THX worthy system without THX stickers, and save a lot of money doing that if they know what they're doing.

Perhaps, but here's an example: Find me a set of speakers, LCR and a few S's, that have the same characteristics as THX Ultra2 certified speakers in one aspect only: dispersion. Go ahead, I'll wait for your reply. On second thought, find me a consumer speaker that even specifies a full set of polar plots that reveal it's spectral dispersion...at all.

So I'll be quite direct here, do you in any way sell or distribute THX certified products?

No.

Lines of speakers are released specifically for the purpose of matching tone. You are trying to undermine the very premise of surround sound packages.

How am I undermining the premise of surround packages? I'm taking exception with the odd-ball center, and as you well know, I'm not the only one.

Absolute identical LCR is impossible for most because of TVs.

I respectfully disagree, it's done all the time. Heck, I do it all the time.

I can't stick a tower right in front of my TV. Hence the compromise of horizontal centers. I already talked about this.

Then you've chosen the wrong speakers to begin with. Nobody is suggesting you put a huge tower in front of your TV.

Come on now, that's just word twisting and semantics.

I'm not twisting anything. The application-specific center speaker is a compromise of packaging, positioning, and aesthetics over quality.

Here this is an interesting article: http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/center-channel-designs-1

..which opens with, "In an ideal world we would have three (3) identical speakers with a vertical arrangement of drivers for the front left, front right and center speakers; hence the term “matching LCR’s”. " ....and... "Mounting a speaker horizontally, like nearly all center channel speakers, almost always sacrifices performance for convenience. "

Notice the final paragraph:

"If you absolutely want to use identical matching vertical LCRs or towers and don't want to block your image, consider an acoustically transparent screen which will allow you to place the center channel speaker behind it with minimal degradation of sound quality. Alternatively, if your theater room is small and doesn't require large high output speakers, respectably good performance can be achieved by using identical two-way bookshelf speakers all vertically oriented which should still be small enough to tuck below your screen or display without causing any visual ugliness."

I mostly agree, but there are actual products designed for this purpose, small enough to be well placed, and still have controlled vertical dispersion, and have matched identical LCRs. You're the one using the term "impossible".

I'm not going to take much time here to comment on the article source...but salt grains should be kept handy.

 

[pinnahertz]

That's pretty much how he explained it to me. He said that whenever he sets up a theater, he always follows all the guidelines as close as he can anyway. But if he certifies it, he has to submit a bunch of paperwork and pay a licensing fee. That costs more for basically just a certificate.

Who are you referring to? THX doesn't certify home theaters anymore, haven't in quite some time, there's no paperwork, licensing fee or certificate.

My particular room has a lot of compromises for practical reasons. The sound can't be focused on a single listening position.

So we agree then that your system won't match the creative environment?

By the way, even though I use a bunch of different types of speakers here, I've EQed them all channel by channel to tonally match the handoff from speaker to speaker.

Not possible. Each speaker design will have a different off-axis response that is not independently equalizable. You've done your best, but it's far from the same as using identical speakers.

They're all capable of producing a very high volume level with all the important frequencies balanced. It's a lot easier to work with all the same make and model of speaker, but it isn't totally necessary.

Depends on your ultimate goal. You've clearly hit yours. Glad you're happy with it.