Matching surround Speakers

[Newton John]

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.

Yes, big difference between Komris and 520s. Komris have 4 way array but 520s are two way. Also Komris have subwoofers and better DACs and power amps. However, with Exakt there is a precise integration between all four quad speakers in terms of timing. Other people who have Linn Exakt surround systems with smaller differences between fronts and surrounds get food results.

I suspect you’re right about the need to match all four speakers in quad. Also, it may be that what I am getting from surround is not bad in itself. It’s probably just a matter of it not comparing well with the exceptionally good stereo. I guess it’s a question of sound quality being more important to me than the immersiveness of surround. Changing back to stereo from surround has highlighted how much depth is already present in two channel stereo with many albums.

Even if surround doesn’t work out for me in long term, it’s been fun experimenting with it.

 

[atlantasteve]

Related question: What are your thoughts on mixing 4ohm rated and 8 ohm rated speakers? I have a 4 ohm matching set of fronts, center and rears (Vienna Acoustic). My preamp is 4 ohm rated (Anthem) and my amp can handle a lot (Sunfire). I am thinking about buying new fronts and center. Any issues with mixing and not matching?

 

[MidiMagic]

I had no problem there because I started with quadraphonics. I bought 4 identical speakers. And I seem to have chosen well, because they are still working perfectly 48 year later.

I have a suggestion: Connect one main speaker to the left main amp and one surround speaker to your right main amp. Play a mono recording (or a set of mono test tones or a sweep tone) through these speakers after adjusting for overall balance.. Listen for the sound moving back and forth toward one speaker or the other. This shows the difference in frequency response between the speakers.

Related question: What are your thoughts on mixing 4ohm rated and 8 ohm rated speakers? I have a 4 ohm matching set of fronts, center and rears (Vienna Acoustic). My preamp is 4 ohm rated (Anthem) and my amp can handle a lot (Sunfire). I am thinking about buying new fronts and center. Any issues with mixing and not matching?

First, what is a 4-ohm preamp? Preamps do not connect to speakers, so speaker impedance is meaningless to a preamp. What are your power amps rated at? Look it up.

Second, the impedance of a speaker has mainly to do with matching it to the capabilities of the amp. Either the amp can properly drive the speaker or not. Power amps are usually rated over a range of impedances (e.g. 12 ohms - 3 ohms).

Again. try the test above with your surround speaker and any prospective speaker.

 

[NineEars]

I experimented using identical speakers in 5.1 and 7.1 setups using Definitive Technologies and ELAC models. The speakers in each setup do sound different just because their locations and their interaction with the room. It is a lot of work to get them to sound slightly close.

 

[jimfisheye]

Using the same speakers and avoiding any and all "correction" processing is the most bang for the buck. Do what you have to of course! We dial in sound systems with brutal EQ moves in rooms all the time for live shows. "Stage is going 'there'. Because is why!" It sounds bad there. "Tough!"

But starting with the same speakers and then tweaking the array position is what gives the most return. You can move around the distances from walls and corners while keeping the array properly aligned to tweak. Unless you have a perfectly treated space there's still going to be a little weirdness here and there. Don't start off in left field with different speakers!

Rooms where music listening is bluntly secondary...
Placing speakers in wrong positions and such because the room is used for a visual appearance for something first or movie watching or whatever it is. That's like the stage in the wrong spot and you do what you need to. And even in this example you really don't want to start with also different response speakers.

There are a lot of old school moves in mixes. Coupling pairs of speakers for bass content. Putting direct sounds directly in a channel and reflections directly in a different channel. Precisely so people with screwed up systems have a chance of hearing the meat of the mix. There are definitely imaged elements in mixes though and especially in surround. You'll start missing those elements with different response speakers and improper alignments. A tape measure and level are your friends here too!

 

[barfle]

My first “surround” system consisted of a pair of Pioneer bookshelves in the front (purchased from a PX while I was in the Army) and a couple of very, very crappy speakers I got from a friend. No decoder, just a splitter. The differences in the sound quality made an interesting and not at all unpleasant effect.

 

[Electric Moo]

I find there can be large volume differences between say, 4 & 8 ohm speakers: so I try to keep everything the same impedence, if mixing speakers.

 

[jaybird100]

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?

Ideally, the speakers (front, center, rear) should be tonally matched. Center speakers are not necessarily optimized specifically for voice frequencies, nor should they be. There can be a lot more going on in the center channel than just voices, and the speaker needs to be able to reproduce everything as clearly as the fronts. If a sound pans across the front, you don't want it to sound different in the center as it moves. The same rule can apply as a sound is panned around the room. Matched speakers will insure the sound characteristics will be the same all around. Overall, though, and this is my opinion, matched speakers create a more satisfying listening experience, for music or movies.

 

[marpow]

Sometimes, well a lot of times, I read different threads on QQ, and I just say to myself "just be quiet". But this one here, wow, starting off with different speakers for vocals and instruments, wow. That would be so intense, time consuming and very, very costly. I would get bored in a second.
Most people here, including myself, have one shot, and we do the best we can, with what we have. My personal choice is B& W Diamond series, all 9 of them. I believe as I use my listening room for video and audio the most important is the center, than for stereo the L/R fronts, than the two rear surrounds, than the 4 heights, that I feel is order of importance.
Tweeter level height on the floor is an important consideration, to have all equal as possible. I am a big fan of separate amps for speakers, but that is off subject.
We all have different rooms, skills to build rooms or set up somewhere in our house, different ability's to pay for items needed.
If you are a beginner reading this thread do what most say, give it your best shot and if you can try and use same brand as Jaybird above me says, tonal balance.
If your AVR or Pre/Pro has the ability to change individual levels of each speaker in your system that is a huge bonus. You will read countless times how someone says, I raised the volume of center, or I lowered the volume of rears, etc.
How I listen right now with a 5.(2 LFE Subs).4 with a 3rd sub connected directly to center channel speaker posts is Audessy Correction, which is not perfect and I have due to my listening position the F/R even db, Center +1db, F/R +1db, Rear left even, Rear right +1.5db and 4 heights +3db.
Some music/songs I fiddle a little bit but I do not enjoy fiddling, I prefer just turning on and listening.
I know this won't help the QQ big wigs, but I always try to write for the newcomer as I was one once.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I find there can be large volume differences between say, 4 & 8 ohm speakers: so I try to keep everything the same impedence, if mixing speakers.

Of course there are volume differences. That's why every AVR/AVP has a means to adjust gain and equalize those differences out.

 

[jimfisheye]

Trying to invent new systems and also weirdly refusing to demo the system everyone else landed on.

The different response speakers for different instruments bit.
You really think the labels or anyone is going to start releasing isolated multitrack recordings like this that would require such a system? And something so open ended like that would throw consistency of a mix between different consumer systems out the window. Creative thinking for sure but it would be a mix for audiophile club systems only.

Meanwhile, we can create imaged mix elements that place sounds (in motion or not) anywhere between 2 or more identical speakers. Identical speakers seems practical weather cheap or expensive. It seems really easy to go with the wind on this one. The pointed avoidance or want to be different seems like a lot of effort, frankly. We landed on the concept in the industry and mixes released for the last 70 years use this technique.

No matter your opinion, standard mixes with imaged elements are a thing and you're just not going to get your hands on raw multitracks (some of which no longer exist) to make a unique mix for a system no one else has.


There are lots of scratch mixes and fully botched mastering jobs released nowadays and those deserve ridicule. The issue isn't the inclusion of imaged elements in the mixes though!

 

[par4ken]

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.

I came into surround in the seventies with a Quadraphonic system. No one back then would recommend using different speakers for the front and rear (dyna quad set-up's excluded), just as you wouldn't consider running mismatched speakers with stereo. Dissimilar speakers might be fine for movies but not for music. That is one reason that most people don't bother with surround while listening to music!

 

[Electric Moo]

Of course there are volume differences. That's why every AVR/AVP has a means to adjust gain and equalize those differences out.

I didn't quote him, but I was responding to atlantasteve's query about 4 & 8 ohm speakers above.

Same impedence speakers certainly does simplify things.

 

[EricKalet]

Dissimilar speakers might be fine for movies but not for music. That is one reason that most people don't bother with surround while listening to music!

Dissimilar speakers were never fine for movies. Back in the Dolby Surround and DPL days, especially DPL-2 days, it was highly recommended to have timbre matched speakers for a home theater. But it was recognized that most speaker sales were for stereo systems and folks were not wanting huge floor standing speakers for surrounds or centers. Most people only had bookshelf speakers or cubes for centers/surrounds or they piece-mealed 5.0 or 5.1 theater systems. As home theater grew along with experts like Jim Fosgate, Tomlinson Holman (THX), Gary Reber (Widescreen Review - loved DTS), etc...making recommendations and the tech for bass management improved, folks started to buy 5.1 systems that more closely were similar speakers or timbre matched. Even back then people erroneously claimed that home theater systems couldn't match the quality of a good 2 channel stereo system.

 

[Sal1950]

Even back then people erroneously claimed that home theater systems couldn't match the quality of a good 2 channel stereo system.

I could never understand why so many people would buy into that line of BS. Common sense tells us that if we use the same quality level of speaker and components for multich as stereo they will both be capable of delivering the same level of sound quality.

The rest of it goes, for best performance you want identical speakers at all points, anything less is a compromise.
Unfortunately compromise is many times necessary for us normal folk. Many audio/video rigs with flat panel screens will require the use of a horizontal MTM type center. Also if your base speakers are anything but small monitors, they're going to be hard to hang from the ceiling for Atmos/Auro use.
I would emphasize though that for a music system, identical speakers in the 4 corners is something we should all aim for if financially possible.

 

[markshan]

I could never understand why so many people would buy into that line of BS. Common sense tells us that if we use the same quality level of speaker and components for multich as stereo they will both be capable of delivering the same level of sound quality.

I think people confuse fidelity and imaging sometimes. Imaging is relatively easy with stereo. Matched speakers equidistant and the balance control at 12 o'clock. Properly setting up surround is much more involved. I believe that most issues with surround are simple user error. This is a webpage dedicated to the art and one would expect only the most devoted to actually be posting here yet look how many misconceptions there are even in this very thread alone. Asking the general public to get it is a high bar.

 

[Quadmon]

I have used the same speakers all around since my first surround setup 50 years ago. My 70’s-80’s speakers were HPM100’s, then some small Yamaha’s. Now I have Cerwin Vega 15” 3-way. Fronts are same model approximately 25 years old, rears same but maybe15 years old. Other basement system has 12” 3-way C-V’s all the same bought the same time from Sears. Yes,that Sears! Use an Onkyo and a Sony receiver in these systems. Centers are C-Vs and subs are Sony.
Upstairs I use four same 8” Sony 3-ways hooked to the 800+. There are four Polk T15’s and Yamaha center and sub hooked to Onkyo receiver.
Have Akai CR-80D-SS decks up and down. Oppo BDP93 down which doesn’t update anymore so plays older Blu-rays but not newer ones. Have Sony x800 2’s up and down. Turntable downstairs only.
None of this would be considered audiophile but sounds ok to me. Basement is 22’ by 28’ and the C-Vs fill the room evenly.
My biggest investment is the music. Way too much! Lol

 

[Sal1950]

Basement is 22’ by 28’

What a great listening space,
I'm majorly jealous.

 

[EricKalet]

I went all out for my modest 7.2 system...hoping to go Atmos soon, but for now, 6 full range towers - Klipsch Legend KLF-20's all around and the matching center.

 

[Sal1950]

6 full range towers - Klipsch Legend KLF-20's all around and the matching center.

Those 6 K horns should provide a very muscular 7.1 presentation. I'm sure you love them, don't hurt yourself.