Dispersion

[Zing]

I'm looking for some new surround speakers. Given the location where they need to be installed in my room, I'm thinking a speaker with above average dispersion would serve me well.

I'm considering a pair of Ascend Acoustics CMT-340's. I've heard these speakers in my room before (I auditioned them as main speakers a couple of years ago) and liked them quite a bit. They produced the clearest sound I have ever heard but, digging in a little deeper, I learned that clarity was due to excessive treble. Ultimately, I chose the Swans as mains but I'm thinking the 340's would make ideal surround speakers. They're even touted as having "exceptionally wide horizontal dispersion". However, their rear port and the very likely possibility that they'll need to be wall-mounted is making them less than ideal. Enter the front-ported Paradigm Studio 20. The 20's are a bit more expensive but would be easier to mount. The only question left is their field of coverage.

Thoughts?

 

[PaulyT]

Yeah, those Ascends look like they're larger than your Swans... Studio 20's aren't particularly small, either. If you're really worried about rear ports, you can always put a little chunk of absorber right behind them; heck I have a few small squares of 2" OC703 I could send you. If you really want wider dispersion, what about dipoles? Though I'm not sure how well that'd work in your space... dunno.

 

[mazersteven]

The 340's and Studio's are excellent speakers. Many people use these as mains in their systems. I don't think you could go wrong with either of them. Also the SIERRA-1 are really nice.

Also you could try the Ascends and return them if your not satisfied.

"If you are a retail consumer and you purchased your product directly from Ascend Acoustics, we are pleased to offer you a 30-day money back guarantee*.

If for any reason during this 30-day trial period you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, you may return these items for a complete refund."

 

[Randy]

Zing, specifically what are you looking for in surrounds? 5.1, 6.1, 7.1? Surrounds for 5.1, or rear surrounds for 7.1?

If you are looking for "surround speakers" with great dsipersion then I still kind subscribe to the old bipole or dipole surround speaker theory. Dipoles will generally have greater sipersion characteristics than bipoles and will tend to produced less localized sound. They will disappear into the environment. For 5.1 systems this is still what I prefer.

For 7.1 systems I like the idea of using dipoles for the surrounds and direct radiating speakers for the rear surrounds.

In any case I think making every attempt to timbre match the mains and center is paramount with all speakers in these types of systems.

 

[DIYer]

thinking a speaker with above average dispersion would serve me well.

If you mean greater angle of dispersion, near-field speakers would be the category to look into.

 

[Randy]

My post was working on the assumption he was looking for Wider dispersion characteristics as typically found or desired in surround speakers.

 

[Flint]

Screw dispersion.

Match your speakers. MATCH

 

[Rope]

^^

WORD!

Rope

 

[Zing]

Let's see if I can address all the points (without quoting) made so far. In no particular order...

I'm looking to replace my rear speakers in a 5.1 setup.

I'm currently using a pair of SVS SBS-02 mounted very high up (almost ceiling) on the side walls of an 8.5-foot high room. Simply put, they're too high. However I can't lower them and keep them symmetrical because of an large opening on the right-side wall. I've previously tried mounting them on the rear wall (same height) facing forward but I didn't like the sound and have since relocated them to no less than 4 other places. I've liked none of them. They've largely remained where they are currently because I've given up as I've run out of options.

What don't I like about them? For starters, you can only hear them and get the intended surround effect when you're seated in the center. If you're in one of the outside seats, you'll rarely hear them. It's so bad, I've actually calibrated them to be 3dB louder than the rest. That seems to offer a little benefit for the outside seats but it's too friggin' loud in the center. Also, when you can actually hear them, they're too easily localized. Beyond that, they're low end SVS cheapies that were mistakenly labeled by SVS and those bastards didn't even offer to make it right which almost guarantees I'll get no more than $50 trying to sell them. I digress.

Having just bought a theater recliner (which I like, am keeping and will buy two more), the seating will now have to be moved further back and that will require a new location for the rear speakers. So this is a good opportunity to replace them. However, they will still need to be mounted fairly high and that's why I thought a speakers with wider dispersion (field of coverage? off axis performance?) would be beneficial. They're also going to be mounted in the tri-corner rear of the room with little to no space behind them.

For movies only, I too think bipoles are the better choice because they're so difficult to localize the sound source. Their diffusion creates a very desirable ambiance - for movies - in my opinion. Not so much for anything else like multichannel music although I think that's more the case in a larger room and not one as small or as narrow as mine. But one day over at S+V, Flint made a pretty persuasive argument that traditional, direct radiating speakers were better. The next time I upgraded my mains, I used my old speakers as rears for an experiment. Son of a bitch if Flint wasn't right. Not only did they do what I needed them to do for movies but they sounded fabulous for multichannel music too. I would probably use those very speakers for this purpose if I could but they're currently residing in Doghart's house.

As for matching them, I don't subscribe to that importance as much as others, especially when dealing with rears versus the front stage. Beyond that, considering where they'll be located, they're going to sound thick, boomy and probably muddy so if I bought another pair of Swans, they'd never sound like my front three. Having a thin-sounding speaker like the 340 with a wide coverage pattern tucked in a bass-reinforcing, mid-range-thickening corner seemed like something to consider.

What'd I miss?

 

[Flint]

An EQ can help with Boomy better than getting a speaker with weak bass.

With matching speakers (which is too expensive?), you could simply aim them such that you get a more balanced coverage. Mounting high actually helps with that. But, I cannot set them up via the web, I need to be there in person.

 

[Randy]

Simple solution,
all you have to do is play governmental entity and declare imminent domain over your old speakers and tell Doghart that he must immediately send them back to you at his expense. Who cares what he thinks, you are the govt.




BTW, the above post is completely tongue in cheek and has no merit. I realize that there is no way for him to actually do this and would not advise him to even if he could.

 

[CMonster]

I have an pair of white Boston Bravo speakers sitting in a box in my basement if you think those might work for you. The wedge shape allows them to fit perfectly in corners.

 

[Orbison]

My $0.02 FWIW - Have you thought about the appearance of the speakers? i.e can you get some with a finish similar to your L/C/R's or at least something that will blend in with the surrounding walls where you need to place them? How about some Swan surround models? I'd expect that they'd be a good match for your L/C/R's (sound & appearance-wise) and would be designed for flush mounting.

http://www.swanspeaker.com/products/products.aspx?cid=1&type=surround

 

[Zing]

Flint, you've had an open invitation for a number of years. You're just too busy jetsetting and achieving your one-percent-dom to be bothered with a lowly pee-on like me. :teasing-neener:

Picking up another pair of Swans would not be too expensive as they're currently $700 and that's only $100 more than the Ascends. However, my OCD would likely force me to match the finish which is now a $500 upcharge. Spending $1200 on underbuilt Chinese speakers would be a bitter pill for me to swallow, not to mention that's close to the price of a pair of Studio 20s which I think are a much better speaker in terms of build quality and sound quality.

Chuck, thank you for the offer but I'm looking for something a bit beefier than those Bostons. But if those spiffy new MA's don't do it for you... :eusa-whistle:

Alan, I have thought about their appreance. If you're referring to the Divas, they're bipoles which I'd like to stay away from. And if you're referring to the smaller D1.1, surprisingly, they're the same price as the 2.1 (although the Birdseye Maple upcharge is $350). Plus, that silver mounting ring looks hideous.

 

[Huey]

Let's see if I can address all the points (without quoting) made so far. In no particular order...



What don't I like about them? For starters, you can only hear them and get the intended surround effect when you're seated in the center. If you're in one of the outside seats, you'll rarely hear them. It's so bad, I've actually calibrated them to be 3dB louder than the rest. That seems to offer a little benefit for the outside seats but it's too friggin' loud in the center. Also, when you can actually hear them, they're too easily localized. Beyond that, they're low end SVS cheapies that were mistakenly labeled by SVS and those bastards didn't even offer to make it right which almost guarantees I'll get no more than $50 trying to sell them. I digress.



What'd I miss?

Zing, couple of thoughts. First thing that comes to mind, is that maybe they are playing exactly how they are supposed to. I know with mine, I hardly ever "hear" them, although at times there are specific sounds for each speaker which would allow you to locate them. Just a thought on that one.

Have you played around with the delay on the speakers? Maybe increasing or decreasing the distance setting would make a difference. I know with my fronts, a 1/2 foot difference will completely disrupt the stereo imaging.

I'm curious about the svs cheapies. What did they mislabel?

 

[Zing]

Zing, couple of thoughts. First thing that comes to mind, is that maybe they are playing exactly how they are supposed to. I know with mine, I hardly ever "hear" them, although at times there are specific sounds for each speaker which would allow you to locate them. Just a thought on that one.

I really think the biggest problem(s) is their location and height. When sitting in the two outside seats, you're pretty much under a speaker as opposed to being in between them. If they could be lowered, I think that would solve a number of my issues.

Have you played around with the delay on the speakers? Maybe increasing or decreasing the distance setting would make a difference. I know with my fronts, a 1/2 foot difference will completely disrupt the stereo imaging.

I've been under the impression the distance setting only affects analog processing like Pro Logic and has no bearing on a bitstreamed digital signal. If that's correct, the only analog signal I ever use is when playing an SACD or DVD-A. I never take a two-channel stereo signal and force it to become a multichannel signal. If that's not correct, I've never been able to hear the difference created by different distance settings.

I'm curious about the svs cheapies. What did they mislabel?

I bought a pair of SVS SBS-02 speakers a number of years ago to use as temporary surroud speakers. SBS-02 speakers look like this...

The very first one I pulled out of the box had its rear label stating it was an SSS-02 which looks like this...

So I immediately contacted them and said I was shipped the wrong speakers (not knowing what an SSS-02 looked like or even what it was). I ordered SBS but got SSS. They asked me to describe it so I did. They simply said that I was shipped the correct pair but that the wrong label was put on it. When I pulled out the second speaker, its label correctly stated SBS-02. So I have two SBS-02 speakers it's just that one has a label saying it's an SSS-02. That was my last dealing with SVS and the latest and last item on a long list of things that cause me to have an utter disdain for that company.

 

[DIYer]

However, they will still need to be mounted fairly high and that's why I thought a speakers with wider dispersion (field of coverage? off axis performance?) would be beneficial.

Further the speaker is away from the listener, wider the coverage area will be by the time the sound reaches the listeners. You would need wide dispersion when dealing with closer proximity.

 

[DIYer]

Picking up another pair of Swans would not be too expensive as they're currently $700 and that's only $100 more than the Ascends. However, my OCD would likely force me to match the finish which is now a $500 upcharge. Spending $1200 on underbuilt Chinese speakers would be a bitter pill for me to swallow, not to mention that's close to the price of a pair of Studio 20s which I think are a much better speaker in terms of build quality and sound quality.

Time to DIY, Zingster.

 

[Zing]

Further the speaker is away from the listener, wider the coverage area will be by the time the sound reaches the listeners.

And that's precisely my problem. I have plenty of vertical distance but no horizontal distance.

 

[Huey]

I had never heard that about the distance settings and bitstreamed material. I would agree if you were using some setting like pure direct, but I've always thought that the receiver still processed the signal even when using bitstreamed formats like the new lossless formats. I know it affects the delay in my center speaker.

So SVS sent you di or bi poles, and then wouldn't make it right? That sucks! They use to be such a good company!