Why would such a huge center channel only be rated at 75Hz?

P

privateeye

Junior Audioholic
This is the Paradigm CC-390, it's gigantic at 40" long and 14" deep weighing almost 70lbs. It has 4 x 6.5" woofers, 2 x 4.5" mid-range drivers and a 1" tweeter. Despite this it's on my rated at 75Hz.

Specs; The CC-390v5's listening-window response measures +2.07/–3.17 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. An average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal responses measures +2.10/–2.89 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. The –3-dB point is at 82 Hz, and the –6-dB point is at 67 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 3.92 ohms at 587 Hz and a phase angle of –63.22 degrees at 91 Hz. 44Hz (DIN).

My question is; Why would such a large center be designed with such a limited low end frequency response? This seems extremely unusual to me and very unexpected.
 

Attachments

ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Overlord
Low frequency requires large cabinets. Each Driver will require a certain volume to approach its Fs (resonant frequency in free air). When you add multiple Drivers, you need to increase the volume of the cabinet accordingly (related to the parameter known as Vas).
Now to complicate things more, number of Drivers will improve power handling, and if done properly will increase Sensitivity, however this does not improve extension of the FR.
Also, being ported or sealed will have an impact on size, too. A sealed cabinet will be smaller, and have a much higher F3 than a ported cabinet will assuming it is optimized smartly.
As I’m sure you are aware, modern Centers are mostly designed with limited size in mind. Large Centers are only minimally marketable. Add to this that most HT users will be adding a Sub or 2, thus crossing the Speaker over to a Sub, then hopefully you begin to see the tradeoff a manufacturer might make.

Some quick math will reveal that the internal volume of that Speaker is less than 2cu.ft. total. Assuming the Mids are separated from the woofers, that removes more internal volume from the woofers: by how much I won’t guess. But taken into consideration, that will be far less than even .4 cu.ft per driver after other volume losses.
Realistically, I’m not surprised at all to see such FR on that Speaker.

Based on other designs I’ve seen that place two Mids side by side like that, I also wouldn’t be surprised to see poor dispersion with some cancelations and lobing associated with such designs.

I know you aren’t asking, but I’ll give it anyway: unless you can find a good set of measurements for this Speaker, I would keep shopping.
 
P

privateeye

Junior Audioholic
Low frequency requires large cabinets. Each Driver will require a certain volume to approach its Fs (resonant frequency in free air). When you add multiple Drivers, you need to increase the volume of the cabinet accordingly (related to the parameter known as Vas).
Now to complicate things more, number of Drivers will improve power handling, and if done properly will increase Sensitivity, however this does not improve extension of the FR.
Also, being ported or sealed will have an impact on size, too. A sealed cabinet will be smaller, and have a much higher F3 than a ported cabinet will assuming it is optimized smartly.
As I’m sure you are aware, modern Centers are mostly designed with limited size in mind. Large Centers are only minimally marketable. Add to this that most HT users will be adding a Sub or 2, thus crossing the Speaker over to a Sub, then hopefully you begin to see the tradeoff a manufacturer might make.

Some quick math will reveal that the internal volume of that Speaker is less than 2cu.ft. total. Assuming the Mids are separated from the woofers, that removes more internal volume from the woofers: by how much I won’t guess. But taken into consideration, that will be far less than even .4 cu.ft per driver after other volume losses.
Realistically, I’m not surprised at all to see such FR on that Speaker.

Based on other designs I’ve seen that place two Mids side by side like that, I also wouldn’t be surprised to see poor dispersion with some cancelations and lobing associated with such designs.

I know you aren’t asking, but I’ll give it anyway: unless you can find a good set of measurements for this Speaker, I would keep shopping.

I appreciate the response and information. My judging criteria are simply what sounds good to me personally; I don't need to verify anything via measurements. That said, this center sounds excellent in my opinion, vastly better than my SVS Ultra. I noticed that Paradigm is still using this exact same design on their very high-end center channels, so there must be some validity behind the design. Perhaps you can help me with another question: I know it's rated at 44 Hz DIN, so what is the difference between that rating and the other stated 75 Hz rating? When I initially got the speaker, I ran test tones through it to check for any issues, and I was definitely getting audible bass by 50 Hz.
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
A cursory search indicates a sensitivity for the CC-390 of 97db (Wow!). Clearly, this reveals that the bass drivers were engineered towards the sensitive end of the spectrum. The engineering trade offs favoring sensitivity (smaller magnetic gaps, lighter cones, stiffer suspensions, lower xmax...) result in a driver with limited extension to deeper frequencies. Adding more of them won't make the speaker dig any deeper, merely louder. So that should help explain the seemingly high roll off.

They are ported, which generally results in a 24db/octave roll off. So, yes, they produce output below 75 Hz, in increasingly diminishing amounts the further below 75 Hz you get. 50 Hz is less than a full octave, closer to half an octave below 75 Hz, so response is probably down 12db or so. Factor in some boundary gain by having it in your room, and voila, you still have audible output at 50 Hz.
 
Last edited:
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Overlord
I don't see any real specs available online with a quick search, so I don't know what the ratings are for the Speaker beyond what some 3rd party reports are, limited in scope as they are.

Best info is Sound and Vision:
1709501922825.png

The CC-390v5's listening-window response measures +2.07/–3.17 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. An average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal responses measures +2.10/–2.89 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. The –3-dB point is at 82 Hz, and the –6-dB point is at 67 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 3.92 ohms at 587 Hz and a phase angle of –63.22 degrees at 91 Hz.

If you look at their measurements, you can see that it is falling off pretty hard from 100Hz down. F3 is measured there at 82Hz, and -6 is at 67 Hz. The Speaker will still put sound out below that point, but the output SPL is ever dropping with an -10dB at around 38Hz by their graph. Some designers call that "usable" output.

If you own it and like it, cool. Enjoy!
 
P

privateeye

Junior Audioholic
A cursory search indicates a sensitivity for the CC-390 of 97db (Wow!). Clearly, this reveals that the bass drivers were engineered towards the sensitive end of the spectrum. The engineering trade offs favoring sensitivity (smaller magnetic gaps, lighter cones, stiffer suspensions, lower xmax...) result in a driver with limited extension to deeper frequencies. Adding more of them won't make the drivers dig any deeper, merely louder. So that should help explain the seemingly high roll off.

They are ported, which generally results in a 24db/octave roll off. So, yes, they produce output below 75 Hz, in increasingly diminishing amounts the further below 75 Hz you get. Factor in some boundary gain by having it in your room, and voila, you still have audible output at 50 Hz.
I really appreciate all the information. Although my experience with the technical aspect of home audio is limited, it has been a hobby of mine for quite a long time. I'm in the beginning stages of trying to understand the deeper fundamentals and learn a bit more. It's a pretty interesting speaker, to say the least! Voices are extremely clean, articulate, and detailed while maintaining good depth where there should be. I have been running an SVS Ultra, which I really enjoyed, but this Paradigm is much clearer and detailed. I had the opportunity to buy this center for a measly $75, and I just couldn't say no to that as it is in pristine condition.
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
The specs I saw were for the v6 iteration. There have been so many versions that it doesn't help with the confusion. Also, sensitivity wasn't specified in volts but rather watts, and given it's 4 ohm impedance, subtract 3db and we see what Sound and Vision measured. It's still a sensitive speaker at 94.5db.

Also, the cc-390 is a bit confounding when thinking in terms of Hoffman's Iron Law, where cab size, sensitivity, and bass extension are the relevant factors. The cc-390 is pretty big, so may not suggest it's limited in extension, but the data shows that it indeed is.
 
P

privateeye

Junior Audioholic
The specs I saw were for the v6 iteration. There have been so many versions that it doesn't help with the confusion. Also, sensitivity wasn't specified in volts but rather watts, and given it's 4 ohm impedance, subtract 3db and we see what Stereophile measured. It's still a sensitive speaker at 94.5db.

Also, the cc-390 is a bit confounding when thinking in terms of Hoffman's Iron Law, where cab size, sensitivity, and bass extension are the relevant factors. The cc-390 is pretty big, so may not suggest it's limited in extension, but the data shows that it indeed is.
It does seem a bit perplexing.
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Field Marshall
It does seem a bit perplexing.
Not really. Nor does it indicate any sort of flaw, merely the competing design goals that Paradigm was juggling when developing this thing. They did a good job, and you are the beneficiary. Enjoy it!
 
WaynePflughaupt

WaynePflughaupt

Audioholic Samurai
Those are some pretty old speakers (not that anything’s wrong with that). Here’s the Sound and Vision review Ryan referred to, that notes Paradigm intentionally traded extension to accommodate high efficiency (which is pretty high, if the specs are accurate). Surprisingly, the huge floor-standing L/R speakers that are part of the series have no better extension than the center channel speaker does.


Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt
 
P

privateeye

Junior Audioholic
Those are some pretty old speakers (not that anything’s wrong with that). Here’s the Sound and Vision review Ryan referred to, that notes Paradigm intentionally traded extension to accommodate high efficiency (which is pretty high, if the specs are accurate). Surprisingly, the huge floor-standing L/R speakers that are part of the series have no better extension than the center channel speaker does.


Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt
It's definitely efficient, Audyssey sets center at -12 during calibration whereas my fronts are around -3.5. I used my SPL meter post calibration and everything is correct. It really does sound nice, just surprising specifications for such a behemoth. Certainly nothing wrong with it though.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
IIRC the CC590 was the model with the better lower response. Your 390 supported by subs should be fine.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
This is the Paradigm CC-390, it's gigantic at 40" long and 14" deep weighing almost 70lbs. It has 4 x 6.5" woofers, 2 x 4.5" mid-range drivers and a 1" tweeter. Despite this it's on my rated at 75Hz.

Specs; The CC-390v5's listening-window response measures +2.07/–3.17 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. An average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal responses measures +2.10/–2.89 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. The –3-dB point is at 82 Hz, and the –6-dB point is at 67 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 3.92 ohms at 587 Hz and a phase angle of –63.22 degrees at 91 Hz. 44Hz (DIN).

My question is; Why would such a large center be designed with such a limited low end frequency response? This seems extremely unusual to me and very unexpected.
I can't find much information on it. I suspect it is a sealed design. The F3 is 82 Hz -6db is 67, so it is rolling off 12 db per octave which is typical for a sealed design.

Those drivers would typically have an F3 around 40 Hz and so you would expect f3 to be around 80 Hz. So if crossed to a sub they should be crossed at 120 Hz probably.

The speaker does look to be a difficult drive. Probably a speaker to stay clear of. Glad I did not design it.
 
P

privateeye

Junior Audioholic
Three-way centers are a good way to go generally. Good score for $75 especially!
I can't find much information on it. I suspect it is a sealed design. The F3 is 82 Hz -6db is 67, so it is rolling off 12 db per octave which is typical for a sealed design.

Those drivers would typically have an F3 around 40 Hz and so you would expect f3 to be around 80 Hz. So if crossed to a sub they should be crossed at 120 Hz probably.

The speaker does look to be a difficult drive. Probably a speaker to stay clear of. Glad I did not design it.
It might pay to read through the thread as you are wrong about pretty much every single assumption!
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
It might pay to read through the thread as you are wrong about pretty much every single assumption!
I made no assumptions. I made accurate deductions from the specification provided. What assumptions were wrong?
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top