3-Way speaker for Surrounds - Your suggestion plz..

[yugaaa]

..



Never thought of this Good to try, but may not be ideal solution aesthetically..

Asthetics depends on how the whole thing is constructed . The box can be kept small as bass is not a requirement in a surround duty .

 

[elangoas]

It may be unconventional way of doing it, but i tried something today purely for experimental purpose..

I used Klipsch RP440c center channel (3-Way speaker) as left speaker and Klipsch RP160M (2-Way speaker) as right speaker with SMSL Q5 Pro stereo amplifier and played some stereo just to see how much of difference a 3-way speaker offers over 2-way for the same source material.


Klipsch RP440c - Center channel

FREQUENCY RESPONSE 59-25kHz +/- 3dB

SENSITIVITY 97dB @ 2.83V / 1m

CROSSOVER FREQUENCY 500Hz/1500Hz


Klipsch RP160M - Bookshelf

FREQUENCY RESPONSE 45-25kHz +/- 3dB

SENSITIVITY 96dB @ 2.83V / 1m

CROSSOVER FREQUENCY 1500Hz

RP440c is 1db more effificent than the BS.

1) Placed the RP440c center channel horizontally

- Due to the additional crossover & additional drivers, the center speaker throw was very wide and it did sound a lil more detailed than right speaker RP160M.

- I could feel more bass on the center speaker than the BS..

2) Placed the RP440c vertically and matched the tweeter of the right ~ to same level as ear height.

- Vertical orientation of the center channel was great, the additional driver over tweeter (midrange & woofer) was making a good difference in height..

- The center channel speaker in vertical position, was shadowing the BS performance, good amount of details from center channel speaker compared to BS..

- Volume of both speakers almost being the same, i could feel that the center was pronouncing the bass better (60Hz) than the BS (45Hz).

I think a 3-way speaker even if it not going to produce anything <80 Hz, will make a great satellite speaker.. If used as surrounds, don't think they will overpower the fronts if level matched, but should provide greater details for surrounds..

Now am more inclined more towards the Taga Harmony platinum LCR60 over the Klipsch RP140SA for surrounds/front heights..

Let me see i can get an audition of it tomorrow in chennai AV Expo..

 

[elangoas]

Front Side

Back side

How would this speaker fare in 5.x.2 Atmos/DTS X set-up, if it is ceiling mounted and used as top middle speaker ?

Any thoughts / downsides ?

 

[manoj.p]

one sentence. very bad off-axis response.

 

[elangoas]

one sentence. very bad off-axis response.

:sad: I thought putting a speaker like this is same as in-ceiling speaker.. Guess they aren't much different.

I think movie theater's too have similar speaker layout for Atmos..

 

[manoj.p]

movie theaters don't use speakers like horizontal center speakers.

those are horn speakers to have better off-axis coverage to wide areas. These horizontal speakers will fail terribly in theaters.

 

[elangoas]

movie theaters don't use speakers like horizontal center speakers.

These are LCR speakers.. So no better for 150sqft area too?

those are horn speakers to have better off-axis coverage to wide areas. These horizontal speakers will fail terribly in theaters.

Am surprised that speakers when mounted in different positions have so many compromises.

In an other thread abt angled surrounds, FM sdurani was saying angled surrounds (tilted baffle) is a compromise.

Just wondering what type of speaker should one consider for ceiling mount :sad:

 

[manoj.p]

yep, those do have compromises.

A coaxial speaker, pointed at listening position is best for ceiling. That will give you a circular coverage for multiple rows and multiple seats.

 

[elangoas]

yep, those do have compromises.

A coaxial speaker, pointed at listening position is best for ceiling. That will give you a circular coverage for multiple rows and multiple seats.

Hmm..I think there are some pointers that one need to be aware of before considering angled surrounds (or) mounting the speakers in the ceiling, which robs the charm of object based audio at the same time limits your experience to 5.1/7.1..

If there is going to a compromise for every other speaker/ speaker location in some form or the other, i guess it is better to live with it..

 

[rajesh srinivas]

movie theaters don't use speakers like horizontal center speakers.

those are horn speakers to have better off-axis coverage to wide areas. These horizontal speakers will fail terribly in theaters.

Further justifying your views about horn speakers used, here is an interesting article about how cinema sound systems works,what type of drivers and frequencies they produce.

Cinema sound: Large cinema sound systems

r/s.

 

[manoj.p]

Hmm..I think there are some pointers that one need to be aware of before considering angled surrounds (or) mounting the speakers in the ceiling, which robs the charm of object based audio at the same time limits your experience to 5.1/7.1..

If there is going to a compromise for every other speaker/ speaker location in some form or the other, i guess it is better to live with it..

There is not much to confuse. Although, some manufacturers will come out some designs like horizontal centers or angled baffle surround speakers. Those do put constraints. Like Horizontal center speaker has always been a compromised design, however, it met the criteria to have a speaker which will lie flat above or below TV. But its a compromised solution nonetheless.

Same with angled surrounds. We all toe in our Left/Right speakers. Would you prefer if some manufacturer releases a speaker with front baffle already toed in? Would people prefer that? Obviously not. Because everyone's toe in angle will be different. Same principle to surround speakers. I would rather angle the speaker to the best angle that meets "my" purpose/taste. I don't want speaker manufacturer to make that choice for my room and lock me into it.

 

[elangoas]

Thanks for your detailed response..

There is not much to confuse. Although, some manufacturers will come out some designs like horizontal centers or angled baffle surround speakers. Those do put constraints. Like Horizontal center speaker has always been a compromised design, however, it met the criteria to have a speaker which will lie flat above or below TV. But its a compromised solution nonetheless.

After reading thru the lobing issue and the alternative speaker design for center channel to counter it(raised tweeter, tweeter over midrange, with bass drivers around), most of us live with compromised center channel speaker.. In a similar fashion, i was referring to the angled surrounds/ speakers on ceiling..

Same with angled surrounds. We all toe in our Left/Right speakers. Would you prefer if some manufacturer releases a speaker with front baffle already toed in? Would people prefer that? Obviously not. Because everyone's toe in angle will be different.

Yes..Toed-in baffle may not be ideal for a front speakers... But, i have seen speakers where it has a slight vertical tilt..The Usher's & some expensive FS...Am not sure of the reasons..

Same principle to surround speakers. I would rather angle the speaker to the best angle that meets "my" purpose/taste.

Assuming one is using even the smallest of BS to angle it to his needs, one has to look for wall mount capability and then a solution of tilt brackets.. All these, i think make a cumbersome process.. May be, this is worth doing it if one has dedicated HT room..

For someone using a HT in living room, above solutions might not be feasible..Angled surrounds might just be the best compromise is one of my reasoning.

I don't want speaker manufacturer to make that choice for my room and lock me into it.

Let us take this example for surrounds..

Most users have surrounds at a distance of 5- 7 feet on either sides of the listening position.. Let us assume one has mounted the regular surrounds 3 -4 feet above ear level and trying to aim to his listening postion and hits 25 degrees tilt angle...

Assuming angled surrounds have a 20 degrees tilted baffle and mounted in the same place as above, how much is a user missing in the loss of 5 degrees tilt? may be not much..

 

[rajesh srinivas]

For someone using a HT in living room, above solutions might not be feasible..Angled surrounds might just be the best compromise is one of my reasoning.



Let us take this example for surrounds..

Most users have surrounds at a distance of 5- 7 feet on either sides of the listening position.. Let us assume one has mounted the regular surrounds 3 -4 feet above ear level and trying to aim to his listening postion and hits 25 degrees tilt angle...

Assuming angled surrounds have a 20 degrees tilted baffle and mounted in the same place as above, how much is a user missing in the loss of 5 degrees tilt? may be not much..

surround channels should not be aimed at the listener or listening position,infact they should be aimed at the center of the room or opposing each other as per dolby recommendation,so here 20 or 25 degree tilt angle is not required.

The theory is always 2 or 3 feet above listener's head to feel the true ambience effects and never hit our ears directly.

The position of the surround channel for the ceiling, front or rear is left to the listener's satisfaction.

r/s

 

[elangoas]

surround channels should not be aimed at the listener or listening position,infact they should be aimed at the center of the room or opposing each other as per dolby recommendation,so here 20 or 25 degree tilt angle is not required.

The theory is always 2 or 3 feet above listener's head to feel the true ambience effects and never hit our ears directlyr/s

I think this may be during the initial days of Dolby digital 5.1 came into existence.. Just 2 surrounds.. So to achieve a diffused effect, they should have recommended 3 -4 ft high than ear level..

Then came 6.1/7.1 surround back... So we placed the surround back too above ear level..

Then came the matrix height channels.. Dolby PL IIz, Dts Neo X.. When you have height channels, i think it is better to keep surrounds at ear level or slightly above ear level, so that you can feel the height channels..

Then came Atmos/Dts X which demand more height channels.. So it becomes evident that the surrounds are best at ear level/ slightly above ear level to differentiate height channels..

Some pics from the net..

Imagine if surrounds are mounted 3 - 4 feet high than ear level and you have ceiling speakers in an other 3 feet from the surrounds, it would become hard to differentiate between them..

 

[rajesh srinivas]

The theory is always 2 or 3 feet above listener's head i was referring to 5.1 or 7.1 channel format.

Regarding new formats I.E Dolby atmos,dts x,Auro-3d even the height channels should be placed not directly above listeners head position slightly in the front,otherwise they tend to overpower the LCR..

r/s