Interesting, although I couldn't find a link for a price quote for ZMV5s.
The Madisound HDS kit has a very well built crossover and a Vifa ring tweeter - which is seriously amazing:
Vifa XT25TG30-04 1" Dual Ring Radiator Tweeter 264-1016
The Madisound HDS kit has a very well built crossover and a Vifa ring tweeter - which is seriously amazing:
Vifa XT25TG30-04 1" Dual Ring Radiator Tweeter 264-1016
being this is the "full range" forum, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that many of the regulars might have rewarding experiences with FR drivers for small to medium HT applications, and particularly with identical driver sets for at the least the main front row
that said, the Zaph series or HDS kit certainly look like great options for those not comfortable with the idea of , or previously disappointed by full-rangers
that said, the Zaph series or HDS kit certainly look like great options for those not comfortable with the idea of , or previously disappointed by full-rangers
I'm not up to speed on this thread, but I'll throw this in there anyways.
My views on using fullrangers for hometheatre are that, it all comes down to these two things: Budget. Size.
If a relative told me they were going to buy a Bose system because they're small, I'd stop them and convince them to go with DIY Full Rangers.
If someone has $500 or $750 budget, full range surround is the way to go. 5 x EL70s or something, Leaves you with a few hundred bucks to get subs done right. The end results will be fantastic for $500.
If you are ok with spending $150-200/channel, then I'd go multi way.
Now if you want a hifi stereo experience from you HT on the side, I'd just save a little $ to experiment with a pair of full rangers. A pair of real nice sounding speakers can be built for $100.
I just recently finished a prototype TMM with the SB29 tweeter and Silver Flute 8" woofers. The tweeter is in an 8" waveguide. It's not super hifi by any stretch of the imagination. But it was built for HT duty, and it ROCKS. I can feed it full reference volume and it doesn't even flinch. Super dynamic and stays clean and clear. When the hero is shouting to his love over an explosive soundfield, I can make out every sylable with ease. That's what it's about. But at $200/channel, it's more than most wanna spend.
My views on using fullrangers for hometheatre are that, it all comes down to these two things: Budget. Size.
If a relative told me they were going to buy a Bose system because they're small, I'd stop them and convince them to go with DIY Full Rangers.
If someone has $500 or $750 budget, full range surround is the way to go. 5 x EL70s or something, Leaves you with a few hundred bucks to get subs done right. The end results will be fantastic for $500.
If you are ok with spending $150-200/channel, then I'd go multi way.
Now if you want a hifi stereo experience from you HT on the side, I'd just save a little $ to experiment with a pair of full rangers. A pair of real nice sounding speakers can be built for $100.
I just recently finished a prototype TMM with the SB29 tweeter and Silver Flute 8" woofers. The tweeter is in an 8" waveguide. It's not super hifi by any stretch of the imagination. But it was built for HT duty, and it ROCKS. I can feed it full reference volume and it doesn't even flinch. Super dynamic and stays clean and clear. When the hero is shouting to his love over an explosive soundfield, I can make out every sylable with ease. That's what it's about. But at $200/channel, it's more than most wanna spend.
I feel like I'm one of the only guys who checks this forum, who actually designs and builds multi-ways and I do agree with 95% of Zaph's philosophy. I fret over 1db when working out a cross over.
However, some of the full rangers I've listened too simply don't "need" filter work. Sure, some of them are a little wrinkly. I can hear the baffle step losses. But for the most part, I wouldn't spend the money on the parts to correct the issues. Not worth it.
I'm not one to believe an inductor or capacitor corrupts the sound (I do believe cross overs corrupt the sound for other reasons, such as power response among others), but passive cross over parts are expensive and generally a waste on a budget 5.3 surround sound system.
Yes, you should use 3 subs.
Another killer MTM array is pair of EL166 and Fostex FF85WK - add in, say $20 for components for series XO, and you're at under $140 per channel before cabinets, finishing, debutante party etc. .
It's certainly not particularly difficult to get any number of relatively inexpensive drivers to rock out well in a full sized floorstander of any enclosure format - the fun part of course is shrinking that performance into compact CC format . A pair of CHBW70 and ERT26 or similar are among the candidates. Then there's the philosophical discussions over timbre matching with mains/surrounds, directivity etc.
and we thought 2 channel "stereo" was challenging
pedantic nit-pit: I agree that multiple woofers have too many benefits to ignore, but wouldn't ".3 "indicate three independent channels of LF information? I'd be all for an affordable surround processor / receiver with stereo XO LP functions in addition to the mono LFE channel. - of course the technology never stands still, so regardless of what's happening in labs or theaters, just how many channels currently exist in any format of domestically available programming?
Last edited:
The example I mentioned above was 25L with a baffle that is 250mm x 665mm
Still kinda large, but not bad The example I mentioned above was 25L with a baffle that is 250mm x 665mm
yes, at 65L, 1095x335x233 the EL166 MTM are not just "kinda large", but certainly not Kleinhorn dimensions or fugly (in the latter case the "f" word would be "functionally" )
A couple of these: Composite / RCA Splitter Cable 1M/2F
If you're serious about bass, I'd go with a minidsp and a room measurement system like REW. Then you could set delay and cut peaks from the subs individually. Four subs is a good idea too. Depends on your budget.
If you're serious about bass, I'd go with a minidsp and a room measurement system like REW. Then you could set delay and cut peaks from the subs individually. Four subs is a good idea too. Depends on your budget.
To be pedantic you still end up with 5,1 albeit with multiple distributed woofers
To do 5.3 you would need 3 distinct outputs from the processor. I think 12.2 is as close as has been done.
dave
Things could certainly easily get more than a bit hairy and costly, particularly if using a surround receiver that lacks line level pre-outs for the front main row. Presumably in a "serious" HT system with main speakers capable of digging into the under 80Hz range the main channels would be seeing a lot of LF information not necessarily downmixed into the .1 channel. But then OTOH, a truly serious HT rig wouldn't be hamstrung by the shortened feature set of a consumer AV receiver - but the interconnects for one of these could cost more than my whole system
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
and I don't even want to think about the operator's manual
Even the receivers that claim .2 (mine does) it's still just mono (unless there are some uber receivers out there that do stereo bass now, that Anthem Chris posted perhaps). But you're right, it's not 3 discrete channels of information. 5.x is a common and universally accepted way of describing the number of subwoofers in a system. What I meant is that multiple subwoofers are important for a HT system.
Then 99% of receiver manufacturers are guilty of misleading in the same way by calling their receivers 7.2. Like I said, in the AV world, 5.x is a commonly accepted way of describing the number of subs in a system. If its more appropriate, allow me to reword my recommendation to the OP:
Try and commit a good portion of your budget to the subwoofer system. At least 3 subwoofers spread throught the listening area is preferred. LFE peaks in modern sound tracks need ample head room, and multiples will smooth room modes. A single subwoofer system is flawed.
Try and commit a good portion of your budget to the subwoofer system. At least 3 subwoofers spread throught the listening area is preferred. LFE peaks in modern sound tracks need ample head room, and multiples will smooth room modes. A single subwoofer system is flawed.
let's not beat a dead horse about this - if we were to formulate a list of "universally accepted" misnomers, well, it'd be a long list
on the second point, we're definitely in agreement - but even then the most appropriate number can be room dependent - and the "best" placement locations to mitigate room modes, etc are not always practicable (the same can often be said for rear/ surrounds as well
As much as I would love to my mother wouldn't be able to survive with that much bass. She prefers to leave the sub off and I secretly turn it on and see how long it takes her to notice. Apparently bass makes her feel almost sick, of course I will work on her about this.
While I was driving home this thread practically exploded haha
At this point what I'm thinking is leave in the current in wall surrounds as they aren't too vital to our system (I'm not saying that they aren't important in general), then I can focus my budget on the other 3 speakers.
I know the sub isn't gonna change, no matter how much I push for a better one its just not going to happen.
After looking at our system it seems that most of everything is going through the center, probably as chosen for my moms sake so I'll spend most money and time on that. I'll probably go with a MTM or similar to get power handling around 100w.
For the surrounds I'll use the same midbass and tweeter but only use one of each to keep cost down
Despite being seen all the time in the marketplace an MTM centre should not be laid on its side (ir not horizontal)
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.