Barely hear movie characters talking....

[Alex2507]

In my experience folks like the Monkeys turn out to be the truly smart ones.

You should have seen me at your age. I was brilliant. Now? ... not so much.

It took me all night to come up with that.

Hey BLA, what are you selling already? Spit it out. I probably need two.

 

[alphaiii]

...I have found that a very good speaker built round a coaxial driver is the best solution. The woofer cone acts as a wave guide to the tweeter, to result in a distribution pattern that minimizes speaker to speaker interference.

The issue has been raised as to whether this results in a sweet spot problem. The answer is no. In fact the reverse. Very uniform coverage at all seats. It seems KEF and Thiel and Tannoy have come to the same conclusion I have...

...I have made this recommendation before, but if your front left and right speakers have a good neutral balance, then this kit is probably the best $261 you could spend on your system. It is the Norwegian Loki kit. It should be very straight forward to put it together.

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=35_40_402_275&products_id=1688&osCsid=1158554417565fec24ab94daccaa870e

It is the driver I use for center channel use.

http://mdcarter.smugmug.com/gallery/2424008#127077128

Now my center is a TLS and is diffraction compensated. The diffraction compensation is active. However the Loki will give you the same excellent speech clarity with no shout.

If any body wants to build the TLS version, get in tough with me and I will have my construction plans copied. They are very detailed. I also have a passive solution for the diffraction compensation.

It matches my left front and right very well although the driver complement is different. Even on white noise test it matches the left and right beautifully, and the sound stage is seem less, which is crucial for opera. I also have this speaker reproduce the sound for vintage mono recordings, and it acquits itself
very well.

What this member is complaining about is a prevalent problem. The solution far from easy. To help solve it seriously consider the SEAS Loki. I don't usually whole heartedly recommend a product, but this one I do.

TLS Guy,

This isn't the first time I've seen an experienced DIYer recommend the Loki kit for use as a center channel.

However, one thing that isn't often commented on is the loss of timbre match across the front when using the coaxial Loki with non-matching L/R speakers.

Given that many of us won't use extensive EQ (beyond something like Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, ect.), do you still feel the benefits of the coaxial center will outweigh the timbre mismatch that is likely to result?

Another potential issue with the Loki is cabinet placement. I would think most cannot place it vertically when using it as a center channel. Given that it's a coaxial speaker, I am guessing it can be placed horizontally....but this will then put the drivers off-center - which may be a non-issue, but would probably but the crap out of me anyway.

 

[TLS Guy]

TLS Guy,

This isn't the first time I've seen an experienced DIYer recommend the Loki kit for use as a center channel.

However, one thing that isn't often commented on is the loss of timbre match across the front when using the coaxial Loki with non-matching L/R speakers.

Given that many of us won't use extensive EQ (beyond something like Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, ect.), do you still feel the benefits of the coaxial center will outweigh the timbre mismatch that is likely to result?

Another potential issue with the Loki is cabinet placement. I would think most cannot place it vertically when using it as a center channel. Given that it's a coaxial speaker, I am guessing it can be placed horizontally....but this will then put the drivers off-center - which may be a non-issue, but would probably but the crap out of me anyway.

You raise a significant point. Quite honestly timber matching is not really timber matching but error matching.

Unfortunately if you switch between speakers in a good dealers demo room, often even from the same manufacturer, you get sounds that a far too different. I always tell the dealer they can't all be right. However there are a select few manufacturers produce speakers that have very subtle differences when you switch between speakers.

In my case the SEAS center is a polypropylene driver, and the mains are magnesium alloy. My surrounds are poly, and the rears, which often have a lot of work to do reproducing some SACD,s, have polystyrene, poly and fabric domes. However the tonal balance of all of them is very similar and nothing stands out.

This makes this whole issue difficult. I can't know every speaker, in fact only a fraction of what is available. What I will say is that the SEAS driver can be made to match any good speaker with a neutral balance. If the other speakers have a boat load of problems it won't.

A lot of this comes down to experience, and I can now make speakers to have a very consistent sound, even if the drivers I select are made of diverse materials. I note no gross tonal balance changes among the speakers in my system.

As far as being off center, you would center the driver, not the enclosure. If you don't like the look you can build you own enclosure, and center both.

And by the way, I do not use anything like Oddity or Crapo either.

 

[alphaiii]

As far as being off center, you would center the driver, not the enclosure. If you don't like the look you can build you own enclosure, and center both.

And by the way, I do not use anything like Oddity or Crapo either.

So if you were to design a cabinet to be used horizontally below a TV, how would you do it, since if you centered the driver, there wouldn't be room for the port in the front? Perhaps a wider, less deep cabinet with the same internal volume? Or would you rear port it?


As far as the auto EQ like Audyssey, ect... I know you don't use any of them... But most of the everday HT enthusiasts do use them, which is why I brought it up - that type of EQ isn't going to allow for the extra tweeting that may help get rid of any disparities between mis-matched front speakers.

 

[TLS Guy]

So if you were to design a cabinet to be used horizontally below a TV, how would you do it, since if you centered the driver, there wouldn't be room for the port in the front? Perhaps a wider, less deep cabinet with the same internal volume? Or would you rear port it?


As far as the auto EQ like Audyssey, ect... I know you don't use any of them... But most of the everday HT enthusiasts do use them, which is why I brought it up - that type of EQ isn't going to allow for the extra tweeting that may help get rid of any disparities between mis-matched front speakers.

I would have to play with it, but I suspect there is room for two front ports. And by the way I don't think those programs can Eq away speaker errors, more likely they make them worse.

 

[alphaiii]

And by the way I don't think those programs can Eq away speaker errors, more likely they make them worse.

I wouldn't doubt it. I've heard more than one person say their system sounded worse with one of those EQ's engaged.

I have yet to try Audyssey with my Denon AVR...so I have no personal experience with it.

 

[JerryLove]

And by the way I don't think those programs can Eq away speaker errors, more likely they make them worse.

But it's not only about errors (non-flat response). It's about level matching and crossover-frequency (to the sub) and timing for the surrounds.

These are all things people adjust. The EQ just does it automatically.

 

[lsiberian]

I wouldn't doubt it. I've heard more than one person say their system sounded worse with one of those EQ's engaged.

I have yet to try Audyssey with my Denon AVR...so I have no personal experience with it.

For home theater they do just fine and can even help with level matching. Nothing can fix a bad speakers sound.

 

[jostenmeat]

I wouldn't doubt it. I've heard more than one person say their system sounded worse with one of those EQ's engaged.

The key here is that it does what it sets out to do, scientifically. And its main goal is not about speaker errors, or xover point, or levels, but room interaction at the listening positions. It works. And it works well. But, if you don't like what the goal is, that's another thing entirely. Probably the most common complaint is a killing off of the LFE, but see, many people like inflated LFE, and not accurate levels of LFE.

There are those who've done their own RTA + building their own filters who still found AS to work better. Others found it to be identical to their own EQ.

However, if the argument is to use nothing at all rather than Audyssey . . . I don't know what to say.

I think it's GREAT! At least for my HT. My stereo has no EQ. Both systems are acoustically treated. Hundreds of pounds of fiberglass and mineral wool treatments. The implementation of Audyssey was almost as big of a leap for me as when I installed all of the treatments. And since I already had more than double digit treatments, that's saying quite a bit.

I have yet to try Audyssey with my Denon AVR...so I have no personal experience with it.

Our resident guru Peng also took a while to try his out. Last he spoke of it, he said he was pleasantly surprised. Why wouldn't you try it? It takes about 30 min for 8 positions (XT version).

 

[alphaiii]

Our resident guru Peng also took a while to try his out. Last he spoke of it, he said he was pleasantly surprised. Why wouldn't you try it? It takes about 30 min for 8 positions (XT version).

I do intend to try it...just haven't gotten to it yet. I haven't owned the Denon that long, but long enough I should've given it a go by now.

And I'm not knocking the auto EQ programs....which is why I stated I have no experience with Audyssey yet.

I was just commenting that I've read some accounts of people claiming an auto EQ made things sound worse - doesn't necessarily mean it screwed things up from a scientific (frequency response) standpoint... Although I do recall a few claims of an auto EQ resulting in worsening of peaks/nulls in-room...

As far as level matching, this can be done with test tones and an SPL meter. And manually setting crossovers doesn't require an auto EQ program either. Correcting timing issues....ok that's a bit different.

Not saying these programs don't have their place...just acknowledging that they aren't perfect, and for some may not necessarily make things better.

Of course, having everything done automatically instead of sitting down with the SPL meter is a bonus... As I said, I do plan to give Audyssey a try...in my case it may very well be worth it.

 

[BioLinksAudio]

You should have seen me at your age. I was brilliant. Now? ... not so much.

It took me all night to come up with that.

Hey BLA, what are you selling already? Spit it out. I probably need two.

Need two what? At this point, I have created such a firestorm that I don't think they will allow me to say anything about product until I've revealed the technology. Stay tuned.

 

[BioLinksAudio]

Thank you for your honesty. However you have infringed the forum rules.

If you can convince Gene and his staff your product if legitimate and useful, then I'm sure he will be glad to take your money.

None of your posts make sense, so I highly doubt you have patented a product that will further the state of the art.

So now all is in the open. For myself, and I would bet for most forum members, you have an axe to grind to promote a highly spurious product.

Snake oil products are usually packaged in pseudo science and statements that make no sense and can't be backed up, just as in your posts in this thread.

Okay gentlemen, I have apparently managed to upset the apple cart thoroughly due to my naiveté over how to participate in your forum. This was my first attempt to create some interest in a new loudspeaker technology and related products that have suffered an amazing lack of exposure in the consumer audio industry. I now realize that my initial approach in using your forum as a “sounding board” was inappropriate. At this point, I have nothing ready to sell on my site but when I do, you will be amongst the first to know it… privately, of course. Meanwhile, let me explain my motivation then the technology behind it.
I was just testing the waters with my blogs in the Audioholics forum. It was hoped that many dedicated high end audiophiles like you were willing to openly discuss certain acoustical problems that current speaker technology has failed to address. Only after spending a good bit of time researching this topic did I decide to build my own blog.
The initial thrust was to discuss two issues:
1. the problem of unintelligible dialog in center channel audio
2. the absence of any discussion whatsoever about phenomenon of subwoofer integration with satellite speakers
Some comments and proposed solutions by a few of your bloggers were indeed referred to in my blog. But yours was only one amongst many discussion forums and pro reviews that were examined. Now, admittedly, HTIB users suffer the greatest from muddy dialog problems but that group constitutes the largest of surround sound system owners. If there is a solution to their problem (outside of throwing money at it with upgrades to better equipment) wouldn’t that be something worth looking into?
I am sure that you recognize the authority of Siegfried Linkwitz and might have read his paper: Issues in speaker design - Acoustic absorption and acoustic resistors (http://linkwitzlab.com/frontiers.htm#A) where he succinctly states, “The challenge remains to build an acoustic termination for the inside of a box.” Others, including Bowers & Wilkins, are trying to resolve this problem. See http://www.gizmag.com/bowers-wilkins-spiral-diffuser-car-audio/8419/ .
For the technology that addresses this challenge, I invite you to review US patent 7207413 entitled “Closed loop embedded audio transmission line technology for loudspeaker enclosures and systems” by J.P. Plummer. The design of the dialog augmentation device (tweeter) that I mentioned in my original post is founded on the principles of this embedded transmission line (ETL) technology.
ETL technology is also incorporated in the subwoofer performance specifications that were alluded to in my other post. I will boldly state that Plummer’s subwoofer product is the only one that doesn’t depend upon resonance as a feature of its operation. Hence, the reason why it integrates so well with the other satellites is because it responds only to the signal, not resonance. Put another way, the speaker is at total rest until, any only when, it is energized by the input signal.
In conclusion, although I am not affiliated with Sharp, you might want to Google their DKAP7 or DKAP8 and read about these miniature iPod speakers with audiophile sound quality that are being made by a major player using ETL technology. You can hear the full range of sound including lower bass coming from a 1.875" woofer that is completely enclosed! That is not a misprint.

 

[JerryLove]

Okay gentlemen, I have apparently managed to upset the apple cart thoroughly due to my naiveté over how to participate in your forum.

That's a false argument. The issue is that you are hawking snake-oil. Any problems of etiquette would have self resolved.

1. the problem of unintelligible dialog in center channel audio
2. the absence of any discussion whatsoever about phenomenon of subwoofer integration with satellite speakers

Except that
1) most of us have perfectly fine dialog out of our center channels (or in many of our cases, phantom centers) and
2) We do discuss integration of subwoofers into HT systems. There's lots and lots of discussion on it. All the discussion about integrating low-frequency drivers in multi-way speaker systems, and the resultant crossovers would be similar as well. We discuss phase, crossover points, dealing with combing, mono-vs-stereo subs, etc.

Now, admittedly, HTIB users suffer the greatest from muddy dialog problems but that group constitutes the largest of surround sound system owners. If there is a solution to their problem (outside of throwing money at it with upgrades to better equipment) wouldn’t that be something worth looking into?

It's called "Midnight mode" on most AVRs. That and increasing the volume on the center channel.

In conclusion, although I am not affiliated with Sharp, you might want to Google their DKAP7 or DKAP8 and read about these miniature iPod speakers with audiophile sound quality that are being made by a major player using ETL technology. You can hear the full range of sound including lower bass coming from a 1.875" woofer that is completely enclosed! That is not a misprint.

Range isn't the problem. Undistorted range at a given SPL x Distance is the problem.

Will U2 be replacing their millions in audio reproduction gear for concerts with a pair of these speakers?

No?

The classic problem with small speakers isn't in the range of reproduction itself. After all, headphones use very small drivers and produce great sound... at very low volumes.

Try to use those headphones to fill your room and suddenly the sound is awful. Bose does the same snake-oil sales on their systems.

 

[lsiberian]

1. the problem of unintelligible dialog in center channel audio
2. the absence of any discussion whatsoever about phenomenon of subwoofer integration with satellite speakers

1. Isn't a problem for me or on most systems I've encountered including the satellite sub systems.
2. What does resonance have to do with integrating subs and speakers?

 

[BioLinksAudio]

"That's a false argument. The issue is that you are hawking snake-oil. Any problems of etiquette would have self resolved.”

Please follow the links. These issues are facts not snake oil.

“Except that
1) most of us have perfectly fine dialog out of our center channels (or in many of our cases, phantom centers)”

How about the rest of the people who can't afford a high end system like yours?

“It's called "Midnight mode" on most AVRs. That and increasing the volume on the center channel.”

Wow. If you're saying that's all you have to do to solve the problems then why are you guys spending all that money on high end gear?

"Will U2 be replacing their millions in audio reproduction gear for concerts with a pair of these speakers?"

The speakers used in live concerts are producing sound not reproducing it. The Sharp product is a personal speaker system not a commercial one.

“The classic problem with small speakers isn't in the range of reproduction itself. After all, headphones use very small drivers and produce great sound... at very low volumes.”

“Try to use those headphones to fill your room and suddenly the sound is awful."

You cannot compare small personal speakers that can be heard from across the room to headphones. Headphones do not involve the room’s acoustics. You obviously don’t know what you are talking about.

"Bose does the same snake-oil sales on their systems."

If you have an axe to grind with Bose then leave me out of it.

 

[BioLinksAudio]

1. Isn't a problem for me or on most systems I've encountered including the satellite sub systems.
2. What does resonance have to do with integrating subs and speakers?

Music is resonance. No playback system should add any resonance to the music whether it is a sub or a satellite if it is to reproduce the music accurately. All drivers in all speaker systems should be critically damped to faithfully reproduce the original source.

 

[JerryLove]

Please follow the links. These issues are facts not snake oil.

I did go to your blog. I do see what you are inferring here.

How about the rest of the people who can't afford a high end system like yours?

The 3.1 setup in my parent's room cost $200 + an old AVR I had lying around. It does not have problems with low center-channel volume or difficulty hearing dialogue.

Wow. If you're saying that's all you have to do to solve the problems then why are you guys spending all that money on high end gear?

Not so that we can understand dialog. We could do that on less expensive gear. We spend our money to get the truest sound possible.

The speakers used in live concerts are producing sound not reproducing it. The Sharp product is a personal speaker system not a commercial one.

So then you are saying that what I hear at a concert and what I hear at home listening to a recorded concert should sound different? Of course not.

The job of any speaker is to convert the electrical signal into sound as accurately as possible.

You cannot compare small personal speakers that can be heard from across the room to headphones. Headphones do not involve the room’s acoustics. You obviously don’t know what you are talking about.

The problem isn't room acoustics: you'd run into the issue in an anechoic chamber. The problem has to do with how sound looses SPL (and a few dozen other issues I'm sure any number of others can explain better than I). A headphone cannot move enough air to make a sound travel with low distortion over a reasonable distance.

If you have an axe to grind with Bose then leave me out of it.

I just cannot help noticing how incredibly similar your claims and theirs look. Miraculous technology that's overlooked by everyone else making small "wife-friendly" speakers produce better sound than any larger rig, and at a fraction of the cost.

Sounds like the wave radio, or the acusitmass systems.

Oh. And I meant to mention this at the end of my last post. Despite your blog-assertion to the contrary, antimatter is quite real. Positrons and anti-protons have been produced more than once.

 

[lsiberian]

Music is resonance. No playback system should add any resonance to the music whether it is a sub or a satellite if it is to reproduce the music accurately. All drivers in all speaker systems should be critically damped to faithfully reproduce the original source.

Damping isn't enough. systems must also be braced like crazy too.

But subs suffer from far less resonance issues than midrange drivers because the cabinet resonances are easily moved out of the range of the loudspeaker device. Still the construction costs of such a system are much higher than those of highly resonate systems. Not to mention the extra weigh and size.

See the thread on Wmax's speakers to get a bit more of an idea of what I'm talking about.

 

[BioLinksAudio]

Critical dampening

What do you use the bracing for? Critical dampening includes the reduction of vibration of any mechanical component in the speaker system including, but not limited to, the enclosure.

 

[adwilk]

Perhaps Bio-audio was introduced to this forum in a less than ideal manner, I get that...

But his posts and blog certainly elude to the guy knowing what he's talking about. I think some of you need to quit arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm interested in what he has to say. It is true that a good bit of systems have hard to hear dialogue and HORRIBLE sounding center channels. If there is a fix for this common problem without having to have high-end gear, then, I say bring it on.

As far as damping vs. bracing goes... Bracing just limits the amount of damping that might have to be done. It really doesn't matter how the problem of resonance is solved, just that it is. Sometimes just regurgitating things read here can limit learning and understanding.