Matching surround Speakers

[markshan]

[ADMIN NOTE] These posts were extracted from the Abbey Road BluRay poll thread

(I wonder how this mix would sound if my center speaker was identical to the fronts?

Better. It would sound better, just as every other surround mix would. I am the world's biggest believer in running matched speakers.

 

[salsdali]

Better. It would sound better, just as every other surround mix would. I am the world's biggest believer in running matched speakers.

Why? IMO Voices sound different than guitars and guitars sound different than drums, etc.

I try to match each one of my speakers as to what sound (instrument) they will be playing.

My center voice speaker is much sharper and clearer than my sub for instance, why would I want them to match?

If you watch a band play on stage each member is producing a very different sound so why not try to reproduce that as accurately as possible as opposed to downmixing all those sounds to sound the same?

Also Atmos speakers have cut offs at much higher frequencies than fronts so why would I want them to match?

 

[markshan]

Why? IMO Voices sound different than guitars and guitars sound different than drums, etc.

I try to match each one of my speakers as to what sound (instrument) they will be playing.

My center voice speaker is much sharper and clearer than my sub for instance, why would I want them to match?

If you watch a band play on stage each member is producing a very different sound so why not try to reproduce that as accurately as possible as opposed to downmixing all those sounds to sound the same?

Also Atmos speakers have cut offs at much higher frequencies than fronts so why would I want them to match?

All I can say is try it and see. When using unmatched speakers and sound moves through the field it is distracting. With matched speakers it is natural. You know that the subwoofer example is irrelevant.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I try to match each one of my speakers as to what sound (instrument) they will be playing.

You have hundreds of speakers to do this, I guess.

 

[sbrom]

Why? IMO Voices sound different than guitars and guitars sound different than drums, etc.

I try to match each one of my speakers as to what sound (instrument) they will be playing.

My center voice speaker is much sharper and clearer than my sub for instance, why would I want them to match?

If you watch a band play on stage each member is producing a very different sound so why not try to reproduce that as accurately as possible as opposed to downmixing all those sounds to sound the same?

Also Atmos speakers have cut offs at much higher frequencies than fronts so why would I want them to match?

Matching is a good thing. I experienced this when I replaced some Pioneer Andrew Jones rears with Ascend bookshelves to match my Ascend Towers in front. Major difference in the surround quality and consistency of instruments/vocals when they move from front to back.

In my experience, and that of many around the surround community, timbre matching is important for the 5 main speakers in a 5.1 system. Most importantly: 1) LF/C/RF should match because vocals and instruments are often distributed across them (ensemble recordings), and these sources may move around the stage. I don't want the character of someone's voice and/or instrument to change as they move around a stage. 2) Surrounds should match timbre for the same reason, but perhaps not quite as important. On the AR mix there are instances where an instrument or voice moves around the room. You want it to have a consistent character during transitions.

IMO there is no reason to timbre match a subwoofer. In a bass-managed system the subwoofer plays a completely different set of frequences, unlike the 5 main speakers.

I have no personal experience (yet) with Atmos speakers, but my belief is timbre matching is not as critical because more often than not Atmos provides ambience and "space". There are exceptions to this (helicopter flying overhead in movies), but less frequent. That being said, if I can find a relatively flat Atmos speaker to match my Ascends, I'll be happy.

 

[salsdali]

You have hundreds of speakers to do this, I guess.

Usually when I listen to a band on stage there is:

1: Vocal
2: Guitar
3: Bass
4: Drum (percussion)

funny how 99% of the music I love comes from those 4 sounds (speakers), not hundreds

wait, you thought each speaker only reproduced one specific narrow frequency, that would be weird knowing how we know how speakers work?

 

[markshan]

Usually when I listen to a band on stage there is:

1: Vocal
2: Guitar
3: Bass
4: Drum (percussion)

funny how 99% of the music I love comes from those 4 sounds (speakers), not hundreds

wait, you thought each speaker only reproduced one specific narrow frequency, that would be weird knowing how we know how speakers work?

That seems to be closer to what you were saying than what anyone else was.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Usually when I listen to a band on stage there is:

1: Vocal
2: Guitar
3: Bass
4: Drum (percussion)

funny how 99% of the music I love comes from those 4 sounds (speakers), not hundreds

So how do you hook them up when the recording channels are not limited to each instrument?

wait, you thought each speaker only reproduced one specific narrow frequency, that would be weird knowing how we know how speakers work?

That's what I thought you said.

 

[markshan]

I try to match each one of my speakers as to what sound (instrument) they will be playing.

Because speakers are not supposed to have a tone of their own. They are supposed to get out of the way of whatever music they are reproducing. In theory anyway, but of course in practice each speaker and each listening room does have it's own signature. That said, to get the best surround experience you need to minimize the differences, not add to them.

If that weren't so, why would companies like Audessey invest so much money into creating hardware/software solutions to attempt to reach that very end? I'm from the old school which says that an ounce of signal is worth a pound of processing, so again I firmly believe in speaker matching as a means to minimize the amount of work such programs need to do. In my little room with my little speakers I don't use any correction at all, but recognize it's utility in correcting glaring deficiencies.

 

[thweeks 5.1]

Because speakers are not supposed to have a tone of their own. They are supposed to get out of the way of whatever music they are reproducing. In theory anyway, but of course in practice each speaker and each listening room does have it's own signature. That said, to get the best surround experience you need to minimize the differences, not add to them.

If that weren't so, why would companies like Audessey invest so much money into creating hardware/software solutions to attempt to reach that very end? I'm from the old school which says that an ounce of signal is worth a pound of processing, so again I firmly believe in speaker matching as a means to minimize the amount of work such programs need to do. In my little room with my little speakers I don't use any correction at all, but recognize it's utility in correcting glaring deficiencies.

ABSOLUTELY! Have as close to the same size and make of the speakers as you can to avoid missing frequencies and dead zones. If any of you guys have ever seen the Abbey Road Studios, where they have recorded and mixed some of the greatest music in History - they use all top of the Line, exact same size, even for the center channel, Bowers and Wilkens 800 series speakers. That is textbook in my humble opinion. One day maybe I can experience it first hand. Pretty much elemental audiophile rule and 100% correct!

 

[markshan]

exact same size, even for the center channel

I run four Rock Solid monitors and a Solid center, and even with that close of matching (same tweeters, different midbasses) I've been considering replacing my center with a fifth monitor. Sometimes the different signature, even as closely matched as those are, distracts me in certain presentations. I wish I had the budget for five small KEF coaxials.

If I had a larger room and a larger wallet I would definitely get five MTM speakers. I've been looking hard at the RBH SV-661s.

 

[ar surround]

Bowers and Wilkens 800 series speakers.

Sign me up for 11 of them: F, C, R, RS, RR, LR, LS, plus 4 for the Atmos speakers. In fact make them all 800 D3's. Let's see, that would be $30,000 x 5 = $150,000 and perhaps they would throw in the 11th speaker gratis. It would be interesting to see how they'd hang those 4 beasts from the ceiling for the Atmos speakers.

Seriously, while we are talking about speaker matching, I wonder how large the Atmos speakers need to be if the other speakers are big floorstanders? In @edisonbaggins review of the Abbey Road, it seems that the Atmos channels have a lot of content. So my concern is that they would have to be somewhat large to compete with the main speakers.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Sign me up for 11 of them: F, C, R, RS, RR, LR, LS, plus 4 for the Atmos speakers. [emoji1787] In fact make them all 800 D3's. Let's see, that would be $30,000 x 5 = $150,000 and perhaps they would throw in the 11th speaker gratis. It would be interesting to see how they'd hang those 4 beasts from the ceiling for the Atmos speakers.

Seriously, while we are talking about speaker matching, I wonder how large the Atmos speakers need to be if the other speakers are big floorstanders? In @edisonbaggins review of the Abbey Road, it seems that the Atmos channels have a lot of content. So my concern is that they would have to be somewhat large to compete with the main speakers.

There is a frequency cutoff for the heights, though, if I understand correctly. That's why I'm comfortable having smaller heights.

Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk

 

[hobie1dog]

Since selling my Magnepan 3.7 speakers, I'm going to move the Definitive Technology BP-2000 speakers up front for my main speakers. This thread has helped me make the decision to look around for a set of Definitive Technology rear speakers since I also have their Center Channel and their back surround speakers. I got the BP-2000, CC, and surrounds, along with a Yamaha DSP-A1 receiver, and an Adcom 5503 amp for $400.00, so I might as well keep it an all DefTech system since I also just found a Def Tech 18" subwoofer for $40.00

 

[IMachine]

No chance to put KEF XQ40 under the ceiling!

 

[Newton John]

After adding surround speakers by the same manufacturer to my stereo setup as an experiment six months ago, I am not at all sure this has been a complete success. I’ve made a number of tweaks to surround and it is certainly immersive for many albums, but still isn’t as satisfying a listen as stereo for most.

The system works brilliantly with some movies - the remake of Dune was fantastic. However, I don’t watch that many movies and the main appeal of surround was to listen to music.

The reason for my preference for two channel listening is that my surround speakers with integrated electronics can’t hold a candle to the front two channels sound quality wise. The surround source may also be a factor.

It seems that the high quality of the stereo only setup usually wins out over the poorer sound of multi-channel when the surrounds come into play. I am reluctant to give up on surround, but can’t afford to upgrade the surround speakers to the same standard as the fronts.

Has anybody here faced a similar dilemma of having to choose between sound quality and the undoubted benefits of surround? Is listening to dozens of surround albums over the past six months enough to be a fair trial? Could it be that I‘ve not yet learned to fully appreciate surround? Any advice will be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[markshan]

my surround speakers with integrated electronics

Can you elaborate on this? It seems like you are saying that you use a different amp for stereo than surround. I would want to know more about your setup.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Can you elaborate on this? It seems like you are saying that you use a different amp for stereo than surround. I would want to know more about your setup.

Newton John has mostly Linn stuff listed in his profile. Un-matching Linn front & rear speakers & something called a Linn Klimax Hub that might be similar to Sonus. Nothing about amps or anything that could explain his dissatisfaction. Interesting....

 

[Newton John]

Can you elaborate on this? It seems like you are saying that you use a different amp for stereo than surround. I would want to know more about your setup.

See my profile for equipment full details.

It's an Exakt system where DSM routes digital signal to each channel front and surround. No LFE sub or centre channel and the signals for these are routed to fronts.

Fronts are active with external amps. Surrounds are active with integrated electronics.

More than happy with stereo sound quality, but with inferior surrounds added not so good despite immersive effect of quad setup. Although impressive with movies and some music recordings, surround is generally less satisfying than equivalent stereo for serious listening.

I presume this is down to the lower performance of surround speakers or source. Just wondered if someone might spot something that I'm missing here.

 

[Soundfield]

See my profile for equipment full details.

It's an Exakt system where DSM routes digital signal to each channel front and surround. No LFE sub or centre channel and the signals for these are routed to fronts.

Fronts are active with external amps. Surrounds are active with integrated electronics.

More than happy with stereo sound quality, but with inferior surrounds added not so good despite immersive effect of quad setup. Although impressive with movies and some music recordings, surround is generally less satisfying than equivalent stereo for serious listening.

I presume this is down to the lower performance of surround speakers or source. Just wondered if someone might spot something that I'm missing here.

The only thing I really know about the Linn Komri or the 350 is that they were / are not cheap! They look very different though – do they sound significantly different? I’ve never heard a quad /surround system with non-identical speakers (however good individually) that sounded ‘right’ for whatever reason so I suspect it may well be the cause of your dissatisfaction.