Matching left, right and center channels!

[Paul McNeil]

I recently replaced a Klipsch center (THX 550), with a Revel Performa C426Be center, which closely matches my left and right front channel speakers, Revel Performa 226Be.

I had thought that Dirac, implemented on my Marantz AV10, would compensate for the differences in the Klipsch center and the Revel left and right speakers.

But, no, the front soundstage is now seamless, and I now know it was NOT before making this replacement.

Maybe it's the higher quality of the replacement speaker, partly, but I think that the near identity of the present triumvirate is the thing.

Your thoughts?

 

[lovinthehd]

Dirac, Audyssey, etc can't perform miracles. Some speakers match better than others. Revel is a step above Klipsch IMO too. Congrats on getting it where you like it!

 

[j_garcia]

Dirac and Audyessy are for correcting performance issues related to the room, not speaker placement or mismatch correction. Although I have heard Dirac do some pretty impressive things, it can't "fix" timbre. The front stage should always be a close match or identical to get that seamless sound.

 

[Golfx]

I would say the beryllium tweeters matching helped tremendously.

 

[Joe B]

I purchased all of my speakers from the same company when I set up my 5.1 system so tweeters and crossovers shared between speakers would seamlessly blend after room correction. I thought this was fairly standard practice, at least for the front 3 speakers.

 

[Paul McNeil]

I would say the beryllium tweeters matching helped tremendously.

I agree, the horizontal dispersion of these Revel Be tweeters and waveguide is exceptionally broad and even (see for example Erin's measurements of the 326Be). That, I'm sure, is not the case for the Klipsch.

 

[Paul McNeil]

I thought this was fairly standard practice, at least for the front 3 speakers.

Well, some of us start out with a stereo system, and it evolves and we then we are often broke and must ask the wife and don't know any better!

 

[Oddball]

Congrats on getting a truly great speaker. I got the same one a month or so ago and really love it. I don't have Revel towers to match, but got the center on basis of measurements and reviews as well as size. It turned out to be a really good match to my Heco La Diva towers. The front soundstage never sounded so good.

Previous centre was Sonus Faber Sonetto II which was also pretty good (and sizeable), but was bought to match Gallo Reference 3.5 oldish towers that are still going strong, but are smaller is scale and sound than Heco's. I did feel that Sonetto II at times had difficult time keeping up with dynamics of bigger towers. Was not really an issue of timbre matching, more dynamics and clarity.

EQ is very helpful and can fix a lot of issues, but can't really do miracles. I have Klipsch RC-64iii in my other system, but that one is paired with Klipsch towers all around and without substantial full range EQ none of them would be even possible to listen to. I can't imagine that RC-64iii could work in my other setup at all, even with substantial EQ.

My last point is that often centre speakers might be matched with towers in timbre, but not in size, which IMO causes substantial issues with front soundstage. Some notable examples would be new SVS Pinnacle towers or a bit more mature Arendal 1723 towers. Both have underwhelming center to keep up with such large towers.

 

[Paul McNeil]

Congrats on getting a truly great speaker. I got the same one a month or so ago and really love it. I don't have Revel towers to match, but got the center on basis of measurements and reviews as well as size. It turned out to be a really good match to my Heco La Diva towers. The front soundstage never sounded so good.

Previous centre was Sonus Faber Sonetto II which was also pretty good (and sizeable), but was bought to match Gallo Reference 3.5 oldish towers that are still going strong, but are smaller is scale and sound than Heco's. I did feel that Sonetto II at times had difficult time keeping up with dynamics of bigger towers. Was not really an issue of timbre matching, more dynamics and clarity.

EQ is very helpful and can fix a lot of issues, but can't really do miracles. I have Klipsch RC-64iii in my other system, but that one is paired with Klipsch towers all around and without substantial full range EQ none of them would be even possible to listen to. I can't imagine that RC-64iii could work in my other setup at all, even with substantial EQ.

My last point is that often centre speakers might be matched with towers in timbre, but not in size, which IMO causes substantial issues with front soundstage. Some notable examples would be new SVS Pinnacle towers or a bit more mature Arendal 1723 towers. Both have underwhelming center to keep up with such large towers.

I wholeheartedly agree, this Revel C426BE is a truly excellent center channel. It's by far the best I've ever had, that's for sure. All of this Be Performa line seem to measure exceptionally well and sound excellent. I know mine all do! I don't believe that they developed much of a following however and am not even sure that they are still being made.

Timbre, to go to another point made above, is just another word for accurate frequency reproduction over a time envelope and I don't believe this is the major improvement that I made (I'm using Dirac full range).

I also agree that size matters, and your example is a good one. Dynamics especially, will be unbalanced, the the likelihood that timbre changes with volume unequally also comes into play, I would think.

 

[j_garcia]

Timbre refers to the sonic characteristic of the driver compliment, size, design etc... Beryllium vs. Titanium vs. Silk will impart a particular sound to the highs. This will be noticeable with "airiness" and high pitch instruments. I think, as you note, it will not be as obvious until you hear a perfectly matched setup.

Mid/bass - aluminum cone vs. paper vs. poly will also give a slightly different sound. When you use speakers that have drastically different drivers across speakers, you will almost certainly notice it, particularly with voices.

I had a few systems over the years where the center was kind of the weak point, even though it was from the same family. As you noted, it underperformed. When I went to three identical, solid performing speakers across the front, it made a very noticeable improvement.

 

[Paul McNeil]

I had a few systems over the years where the center was kind of the weak point, even though it was from the same family. As you noted, it underperformed. When I went to three identical, solid performing speakers across the front, it made a very noticeable improvement.

I've always put the least effort and money into the center. In this case, the center outperforms (but matches the two towers). Now I listen to music with Dobly Pro Logic processing, something I have never preferred before, and without 'center spread'. And as for movie surround, well, as they say 70% of the sound reproduction is from the center.