Cornwall, room response figures.

[Klipschguy]

Gil,

Thank you for the response. My system was set by ear until it sounded good to my ears. The meter says I'm a little boosted in the bass and in the highs. But, given two factors 1) I don't usually listen to my music very loud (prefer moderate levels), and 2)the FM curves, my system is probably set about right.

HornEd,

Good to see you back on board - welcome back.

Regards,

Andy

[Kevin S]

The Fletcher-Munson curves also help explain why when conducting any comparison of audio components, (wires, cables, amps, preamps, speakers, etc.), if the comparisons are not made at matched levels, the results really cannot be considered valid. Without matched levels, you are probably hearing the changes in sensitivity of your ears more than any change in the component. It also explains why when people set equalizers up by ear, you usually see the bass end and the treble ends boosted. People do not generally listen at 90 to 95 db levels for their everyday listening, so they are compensating for the natural response rolloff of their ears at lower levels.

------------------

L/C/R: Klipsch Heresy II

Surround: Klipsch RS-3

Subwoofers: 2 HSU-VTF-2

Pre/Pro/Tuner: McIntosh MX-132

AMP: McIntosh MC-7205

DVD: McIntosh MVP-831

CD Transport: Pioneer PD-F908 100 Disc Changer

Turntable: Denon DP-72L

Cassette: Nakamichi BX-1

T.V. : Mitsubishi 55905

SAT/HDTV: RCA DTC-100

Surge Protector: Monster Power HTS-5000

[tidmack]

Gil,

Thank you very much for your easy to understand response. have a great weekend!

Jeff

[WMcD]

Thanks for the kind words.

BTW, I did a bit of testing over the weekend. 30 dB is not quiet music. It is very, very quiet music.

Good to see you back, Horn Ed.

I have some observations and opinions on center channel, and the industry in general. My conclusion is that it has always make the most sense to use an identical speaker in the center. The industry has had to be careful about costs, and thus the layout moves around from that ultimate.

With the phonograph there was only one speaker, so we had mono, without knowing it. The center speaker was the only speaker. In an alternate universe, everything would keep that as a standard, and mess with every other aspect. It didn't work that way in our universe. Interesting to consider.

Later in our universe in the '30s, as shown in the Klipsch papers, Bell Labs used a three channel system to transmit from one concert hall to another. Three mikes in front of an orchestra. Then bring the three signals to another hall far away, and use three identical speakers. Results were very good.

My observation is that this was three identical, and independant channels from one end to the other and this was used for a reason. The engineer's thoughts might well have been that compromise might have been possible any where along the system. But their task was to get the best results and not test where the compromises could be made without audible detriment. They weren't testing for the compromise.

Of course in those days there was no "storage" of three channels on "records". Or even two. Disney did multichannel on Fantasia in the early '40s with six or so optical tracks running on a synchronized film. High tech and not for home use.

Later in the late '50s, two channel became available at home through FM multiplex, stereo vinyl, and two track tape. The cost of this at home was high. It was difficult enough to sell duplicate equipment. And there was the hole in the center.

PWK championed the center channel L + R, which had been originally investigated by Bell Labs. But there were probably still the issues of the buyer having to shell out for a third, center speaker. The Model H and Cornwall filled in between K Horns. And Belle and LaScala.

At this point I pause and wonder. In a phantom L + R center, is the greatest part of the signal in the center? Some early Dolby matrix systems had the same L + R center. The thought may have been that the derived center was good for imaging and a bit of a "helper". That is my term, for purposes of discussion.

The cost of a home system was rapidly escalating with Dolby and its 5.1. More and more speakers, amps, VHS, bigger TVs. It seems to me that the cost forced compromises in speakers. Also, you need something small to go on or under the tube. It has to be magnetically shielded. Ergo, just as the center channel is becoming more important, there is less money to spend on it. It's in competition with the sub and surround for funding.

We also have to look at the "evolution" syndrome. People were used by then to two big flanking speakers for "stereo". And to this day, there is a divide between two channel fans and multichannel.

On the other hand, starting with the proverbial clean sheet of paper, if the system had a sub, it would have made sense to use three small speakers up front and let the sub do the work. But folks were used to big flanking speakers.

I'd think that if size and esthetics were not issues, the best speaker set up would be identical ones across the front. That is were Bell Labs started.

Now because of electronics, we're at a spot were Bell Labs was in the '30s. We do have multiple independent channels via DVD, etc. And like with Fantasia, we're using them with movies. This is a bit of a special application because dialog is specifically in the center independent channel. And there are sometimes "pans" across the screen.

The latter (movies and an independent channel source) suggests a bit of a change of circumstances. It might have been correct to conclude in days past that with music, a smaller "helper" center could have compromised output, or not be a perfect match. Now the center, as Horn Ed hears, is the hardest worker in many situations, and the most critical to good listening.

I've glossed over a lot in the above. There has been a long and ongoing appreciation of multiple channel sound. But there has also been an ongoing problem of size, complexity and cost, and approaches to make things marketable. I'll stop explaining the obvious.

Horn Ed, I think you've re created what the ancients envisioned. Forward, into the past! =8^o

Gil

[HornEd]

You are spot on as usual, Gil! Thanks for the abbreviated trip down memory lane, I recall every twist and turn of it much as you succinctly laid it out.

My task was to call attention to all those who have joined the fray and believed that the consensus opinion of matching diminished centers and ambient oriented surrounds were a proper way to build a system today for tomorrow's discrete multi-channel world.

I tried to appeal to reason as you so eloquently did with your historical perspective. Obviously, in the Home Theater section I seized upon T-man's phantom challenge to illustrate how much is there before a smaller center channel gets the lion share of the sound from the flanking mains. Make no mistake, I treasure the 20-80 Hz wonderland that subwoofers bring into our listening areas with, hopefully, minimal standing waves. But really thrilling bass material comes along a lot less frequently than the mainstream fare of a center channel.

Yet people are willing to spend far more in dollars and "decor concessions" with subs than they are with center speakers. How often have you heard the disdain for Bose on this board (to which I agree)... but having wimpy centers to match bulkier flanking mains is akin to buying in to the Bose solution of unrealistic sound from a smaller box in the name of chic.

Lately I have been fiddling with my cad/cam looking at inverted "U" cabinetry designs to allow for an aesthetically utilitarian way to gain sufficient space to have a proper center channel. Like TBrennan, I do not have to pass muster as to how ugly speaker configuration may be that I drag into my home theater or music/work room. Obviously, three identical towers for LMain, CMain, RMain are ideal... but then one must go to the expense of a projection system with a perforated screen. Getting sound to appear to be coming out of the middle of a TV monitor is a challenge as you correctly point out. Actually, in an RPTV, there are plenty of unused cubic inches behind the screen that could be used for a horizontal center channel if the screen were perforated (e.g., the space required for the path of light from the three CRT's to the mirror to the screen leave parts of the internal cabinet that are used for nothing other than being a rectangular piece of furniture).

When upwards of 75% of the sound is directed toward the center speaker, it needs to be stronger at least as capable as the right and left mains. In fact, as you obliquely point out, to call them "mains" is a misnomer in 5.1 and above. The center has become the "main" and the mains have become secondary supporting speakers by virtue of the sound energy directed to them. In HT, it HAS to be like that since the "action" is most often relegated to the center of the screen. Most modern HT systems have an undersized center standing on its toes "screaming" out the main program material while the robust flanking "mains" are doing comparatively light duty.

My "homebrew" solutions to the patently obvious opportunities of 6.1 has been proven to anyone who has heard my "nonagenarian" rig. The issue is clearly a challenge for today's speaker manufacturers to rise to the occasion and solve the cost/aesthetic problem and put three mains up front that make sense... and truly bring the theater experience into the home.

With all the arcane lore of acoustic innovation, every once in a while there is something we can all understand... like to put less than your best speaker in the place that handles more sound than all of your speakers put together... just doesn't make sense.

Gotta get off the soap box and catch some ZZZZ's Thanks, counselor, for stepping out and speaking up. HornEd

[Klipschguy]

Hey looked what I dredged up from the good ole days looking for some of my old "in room response" Cornwall numbers. BTW, Remember HornEd?...great guy.

Andy