... for that specific test piece. Cannot generalize beyond it.
This is straight up meaningless and wrong. The driver selection and designer's choices will dictate speaker efficiency. Even comparing a MT bookshelf to a MTM with same drivers, the latter speaker's efficiency wont automatically be higher due to 2 Mids. One can't tell if the MTM is a 2 way or 2.5 way design just by looking at driver numbers.
This is also mentioned on your blog post. IMO, edit it to clarify, a 2 way MTM could be up to 3dB more efficient than a MT bookshelf using same drivers. In the blog you say, "in the same line", this is insufficient.
This is half truth and misinformation.
In general with a two way configuration a good deal are, in fact I bet I could find more mtm counterparts that do achieve an extra 3dB of sensitivity than don’t.
That isn’t the only movie I’ve tested like that with similar results. I can go through several others if necessary. The conclusion I’ve reached from picking apart multiple soundtracks is the center channel contains the most content out of all channels, and that the surrounds are not merely “barely used” for ambiance.
The fact of the matter is, at any point in time, any of 5/7 channels in a mix may hit 0dBfs, and multiple channels hitting peaks simultaneously is less rare than is commonly believed. There’s just no evidence to support the erroneous assumption that the front left and right speakers are the most important channels in a system. If someone can show me otherwise, fine, but I’ve yet to see it.
If you truly want to experience the full dynamics of movie soundtracks the way they’re intended to be, all speakers and amplifiers should be capable of handling full 0dBfs peaks (relative to a listeners preferred volume level, ie 90 dB at -15dB relative to reference or 105dB at true reference levels) without dynamic compression or distortion in regards to the distance from each channel. Obviously due to budget or space constraints, it’s not always possible to place five or seven large speakers in a room, but I’m talking ideally.
It also helps that in many homes the surrounds are placed closer to the mlp than the front channels, reducing the burden. My surrounds and front speakers are identical sensitivity, but my surrounds are 4’ closer to me than the fronts, enabling them to be calibrated 3dB lower than the front two, my overhead speakers are 3dB less efficient than my fronts, but are also 4’ closer, and they are therefore calibrated to the same trim level as the fronts. All speakers except for the heights (which are -3dB at 70hz) have an identical -3dB response down to 50hz, and are capable of 105dB at the MLP. With the knob set to 0dB, all speakers measured at 1m display less than 3% THD from 50hz for the floor speakers and 70hz for the height and above. Taking the in room sensitivity into account, all speakers are capable of achieving 95dB (I listen @ -10dB) with a mere 25w.
I guess it depends what’s most important to you. In my opinion, I’d rather my system be capable of clean, dynamic headroom during a worst case scenario of 0dBfs peaks with all 7 channels at once, even if it’s a rare occurrence. I’ve had setups with powerful left and right speakers and smaller satellites for surrounds, and there is just no comparison to the kind of dynamic continuity experienced with a system that is identically capable all around. There are a few threads from avs forum floating around detailing peoples experiences utilizing identical floor speakers for the surrounds as their left and right, and you will find nothing but positive comments on the improvement in doing so. I’m not saying one necessarily needs towers all around, or towers at all, just that each speakers and amplifiers should be equally capable and should be able to effortlessly reproduce the desired maximum level with some headroom to spare.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
