Choosing Speakers for Dedicated Home Theater

[KING DRANZER]

Upping the channel count could help with envelopment by replacing acoustic reflections with direct sound. You would want a treated room for that with lots of absorption. This isn't something meant for living room or family room, this is for a dedicated home theater room.

No this going to be Dedicated Home theater. Absolutely be fully treated. The 9.8.6 KEF Living Room setup I mentioned in the OP is to give an idea of what he be experiencing in his Living room. And the expectations set for the "Dedicated Home Theater" which this thread is for. So yes will be fully treated. and lots of absorption.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Not trying to go for Trinnov unless it is absolutely necessary...

Well, nothing is absolutely necessary.

Shoot, even if I were a trilliionaire, I would still just use my Yamaha 11Ch AVP.

Just because some things cost a lot more does not mean I will like it better.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

RBH - are the lower end models a lot worse than the SVTR ? Or close to it in performance, but just lacking the absolute lower end due to the size limitations.

They pretty much just have less BASS and a little less dynamics.

The SI-831 and SI-1212 together are basically the same as the SVTR towers. Which models were you looking at?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The 9.8.6 KEF Living Room setup I mentioned in the OP is to give an idea of what he be experiencing in his Living room. And the expectations set for the "Dedicated Home Theater" which this thread is for. So yes will be fully treated. and lots of absorption.

Why does he want TWO rooms that are 9.8.6 ????

 

[KING DRANZER]

Well, nothing is absolutely necessary.

Shoot, even if I were a trilliionaire, I would still just use my Yamaha 11Ch AVP.

Just because some things cost a lot more does not mean I will like it better.

Nah see as shadyJ said above that to get similar immersive experience using narrow dispersion speakers I need more channels to get similar enveloping experience as I do with KEFs. I mean in my case I will only get it if it serves the purpose of giving me that enveloping experience with upping the channel count.

That is the sole purpose of me getting that.

 

[KING DRANZER]

Why does he want TWO rooms that are 9.8.6 ????

One is living room. Where he watching all the regular content and some small budget movies etc. That too on just 83" TV. In dedicated home theater he watching big budget movies on 220" screen. Yes two bit different experience. But wants both.

9.8.6 for Living room is bit crazy but well he wants it and going for it. That makes it difficult to up it in Home Theater.

 

[KING DRANZER]

They pretty much just have less BASS and a little less dynamics.

The SI-831 and SI-1212 together are basically the same as the SVTR towers. Which models were you looking at?

Yes possibly the SI-831. Looks like it is similar driver config.

 

[KING DRANZER]

@shadyJ @AcuDefTechGuy I have read that speakers with ribbon tweeter or amt or similar stuff if used in HT specifically with higher channel count will they be less effective in imaging due to them being wide dispersion speakers will they be overlapping or something. How does that work. Please can you guys provide me more insight on this.

 

[shadyJ]

@shadyJ @AcuDefTechGuy I have read that speakers with ribbon tweeter or amt or similar stuff if used in HT specifically with higher channel count will they be less effective in imaging due to them being wide dispersion speakers will they be overlapping or something. How does that work. Please can you guys provide me more insight on this.

AMTs/ribbons themselves don't have much to do with this. It has more to do with the absorption of the room and constriction of dispersion. The less room reflections there are, the more that you have to make up for that in surround channels if you want a sense of spaciousness and envelopment. But when you do replace room reflections in favor of surround speakers and absorptive acoustics, you do have more control over the character of the sound. AMTs and ribbons can have wide dispersion unless you place them in a waveguide, but if that dispersion is just going out to absorptive material, then it doesn't make a difference. You should be looking more at the end performance of a speaker rather than certain driver designs.

 

[KING DRANZER]

AMTs/ribbons themselves don't have much to do with this. It has more to do with the absorption of the room and constriction of dispersion. The less room reflections there are, the more that you have to make up for that in surround channels if you want a sense of spaciousness and envelopment. But when you do replace room reflections in favor of surround speakers and absorptive acoustics, you do have more control over the character of the sound. AMTs and ribbons can have wide dispersion unless you place them in a waveguide, but if that dispersion is just going out to absorptive material, then it doesn't make a difference. You should be looking more at the end performance of a speaker rather than certain driver designs.

So will having absorptive acoustics and more channels be helpful in having more control even with wide dispersion speakers like RBH. I though that would only be ideal for narrow dispersion speakers.

 

[KING DRANZER]

AMTs/ribbons themselves don't have much to do with this. It has more to do with the absorption of the room and constriction of dispersion. The less room reflections there are, the more that you have to make up for that in surround channels if you want a sense of spaciousness and envelopment. But when you do replace room reflections in favor of surround speakers and absorptive acoustics, you do have more control over the character of the sound. AMTs and ribbons can have wide dispersion unless you place them in a waveguide, but if that dispersion is just going out to absorptive material, then it doesn't make a difference. You should be looking more at the end performance of a speaker rather than certain driver designs.

@shadyJ I had similar discussion on AVS Forum but see I am unable to understand what makes the KEF have that depth of field to it which other speakers I compared to it lack. See I did compare them in the same acoustically treated hall. There the KEF R and to some extent Focal Kanta had the depth of field where I could easily notice the dimensionality and get the enveloping effect. Which speakers like Polk Legend, JBL Synthesis HDI-3000 and B&W 700 series lacked. They were all really good in producing direction sounds and imaging. Like I was clearly able to distinguish the different elements and where the were placed but kinda on a 2D layer. With KEF and Focal I got that feel to which was a bit closer to me and which was bit away and where the elements were exactly placed. Why are those speakers lacking in depth why do they sound flat or why does KEF has that much more depth of field. If they were in different rooms or different setups then yes would have considered that it was the room or setup that made them sound flat. But in same condition KEF was doing something that the other three were lacking. People say it is due to it being concentric driver but then I also had this discussion in JTR thread which also has coaxial driver from highs and mids and there they stated that speakers like JTR and Ascendo even though being coaxial are narrower in dispersion and for a similar effect I am looking for I be needing more channels or would face similar issue as what the Polk etc had.

I am trying to understand this concept. Please your insight on this be really helpful.

 

[TLS Guy]

@shadyJ I had similar discussion on AVS Forum but see I am unable to understand what makes the KEF have that depth of field to it which other speakers I compared to it lack. See I did compare them in the same acoustically treated hall. There the KEF R and to some extent Focal Kanta had the depth of field where I could easily notice the dimensionality and get the enveloping effect. Which speakers like Polk Legend, JBL Synthesis HDI-3000 and B&W 700 series lacked. They were all really good in producing direction sounds and imaging. Like I was clearly able to distinguish the different elements and where the were placed but kinda on a 2D layer. With KEF and Focal I got that feel to which was a bit closer to me and which was bit away and where the elements were exactly placed. Why are those speakers lacking in depth why do they sound flat or why does KEF has that much more depth of field. If they were in different rooms or different setups then yes would have considered that it was the room or setup that made them sound flat. But in same condition KEF was doing something that the other three were lacking. People say it is due to it being concentric driver but then I also had this discussion in JTR thread which also has coaxial driver from highs and mids and there they stated that speakers like JTR and Ascendo even though being coaxial are narrower in dispersion and for a similar effect I am looking for I be needing more channels or would face similar issue as what the Polk etc had.

I am trying to understand this concept. Please your insight on this be really helpful.

You have asked a complex question.

First of all the speaker is only half of the equation. The microphones and their layout, are half or more of the issue. The biggest problem is too many microphones. This bedevils the pop culture, but in that arena, I think having the music in your face is a desired result. At least I think it is, but I run a mile from the pop culture. I do know that for recordings in the classical domain, my view is the less microphones the better.

When it comes to speakers, depth of field really comes down to dispersion and frequency response.

The wider the dispersion the better for depth of field, as long as the dispersion pattern very closely matches the axis response.

Even small peaks in the midrange will destroy depth of field, yes just destroy it. The critical area to avoid even small peaks is between between 1.5 and 5 KHz.

I slight dip here, known often as the "BBC smiley", will give you depth of field bt at the expense of detail and clarity. But a dip is far preferable to even a small peak.

The KEF speakers you liked have a really flat response across the midrange. So that is probably why you like them so much.

Unfortunately the majority of speakers are actually not very good. Gems are far and few between.

 

[KING DRANZER]

You have asked a complex question.

First of all the speaker is only half of the equation. The microphones and their layout, are half or more of the issue. The biggest problem is too many microphones. This bedevils the pop culture, but in that arena, I think having the music in your face is a desired result. At least I think it is, but I run a mile from the pop culture. I do know that for recordings in the classical domain, my view is the less microphones the better.

When it comes to speakers, depth of field really comes down to dispersion and frequency response.

The wider the dispersion the better for depth of field, as long as the dispersion pattern very closely matches the axis response.

Even small peaks in the midrange will destroy depth of field, yes just destroy it. The critical area to avoid even small peaks is between between 1.5 and 5 KHz.

I slight dip here, known often as the "BBC smiley", will give you depth of field bt at the expense of detail and clarity. But a dip is far preferable to even a small peak.

The KEF speakers you liked have a really flat response across the midrange. So that is probably why you like them so much.

Unfortunately the majority of speakers are actually not very good. Gems are far and few between.

Okay that makes sense.

But is JBL Synthesis HDI-3000 series not flat in Mid-range and have wide dispersion as well. It was absolutely flat in comparison to KEF or even the Focal. No noticeable depth of field at all.

I actually went in with high hopes for the Synthesis speakers as those were very highly regarded in the audio community. But was not impressed at all. Yes it had really good imaging and had more dynamics than the KEF R5 but had no depth at all. Was not immersive and fell flat.