0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 9310 times.
Would they work out well? Would/COULD you use (or even FIND) a sub that would match them? Thoughts?
If you really want that dynamic SLAM then I would stay away from panels alltogether. Cone speakers would give you more of that kick in the chest feeling and horns have it in spades.
Would they work out well?
Would/COULD you use (or even FIND) a sub that would match them? Thoughts?
You have got to be shitting me. But, ok, I guess.
If anyone has heard Ray Kimber's Isomike surround presentations with Soundlabs...wow. ...
From my take, if you are setting up a killer 2 channel rig that can double for home theater then sure go for it if you can properly set up the speakers. If you are going for just a home theater rig then I don't see how these would be the right pick. First, you need to get these speakers away from the walls to take advantage of dipoles do so well. They are BIG and get in the way. They are not explosively dynamic like other speakers can be. Myself, I would go for a high eff. horn based system, or something close to that sound. Explosive, dynamic, speakers that can go against a wall and be out of the way is what I would do for home theater. But like Steve said, just go for it as we are all enablers. Rocket_Ronny
Dipoles work if you don't need theater-style seating, since you can move them out from the wall without blocking the screen. I've done it successfully with a 108" screen. I fear, though, that Sound Labs aren't appropriate for that approach, since they're too big and the mid/high acoustical center isn't offset as it is in Maggies.If you have a big enough room, you can use an acoustically transparent screen. That would also allow the use of a full-height center channel.
Last sentence: from the perspective of ideal audio performance any HT employing flat panel technology is fail by definition. Several things make this so: a screen located for ideal viewing height (I read about 20 hours on this subject prior to siting my perforated screen) and any, I repeat any, properly sited C channel speaker require to be in the same space at the same time. Flat panels are almost always mounted too high to make room for speakers, ranging from moderately to stupid beyond comprehension. Every single speaker targeted specifically for C Ch use, including Wilson's $50k piece, exists to work around the unworkable physics defined above. I've not tested the following theory, but I'd take at least a steak dinner bet that I could blindfolded tell with at least 90% accuracy in ABX whether or not we switched between any maker's L/R speaker and their so-called matching C Ch speaker, level matched to .1 dB. If short boxes can replicate the performance of tall boxes, stop making tall boxes. The day your reference for the best audio describes a system with speakers in the wall or flush with the wall, please post here. Speakers require front wall clearance for ideal spatial cues. Kimber's Iso-Mic system employed two large stats in each of four corners, but he develops images clear as day 1/3rd toward the room's center via his proprietary recording technique and the speakers in the rear corners. (The only Achilles Heel is cost and the huge heart-shaped mic baffles require large venues and crane mechanism for placement...I've heard professionally the best 2-ch for many decades and you are sadly hugely mistaken if you think it compares favorably to Ray's work.)As Kimber proves unequivocally (he gets far too little credit in print because it damps 2-ch gear sales) the best music reproduction requires more than two channels. Besides improving well beyond stereo, Trinaural's C Ch also integrates perfectly with HT, as long as that HT employs a perforated screen (available in small sizes by special order for close viewing distance). It's a huge black mark on the entire high end industry that this is not common knowledge.
Agree completely that speakers should be out from the wall, that center channel speakers have impaired performance (and even if they didn't would be too low for proper spatial rendition and too high to allow optimal screen positioning), and that two channel stereo is inferior -- not just spatially, but tonally as well.It has long been a mystery to me that the high end claims to be interested in fidelity and yet ignores and even looks down on technologies that can improve it dramatically.Of course, most home theaters aren't primarily about sound quality and not everyone has the space to allocate 5' feet behind an acoustically-transparent screen. It's also true that at least last I checked the AT screens available weren't great -- there was a long thread about this on DIY audio some years back, they actually had a batch of superior AT fabric made up.
Effects, spatial clues etc, are primarily an efect of the recording. Unfortunately few good two miked recordings exist. The next most important factor is the room itself. I personally believe that the traditional box speaker has reached the end of its design potential. ESL hybrids, some planar magnetics, dynamic drivers in properly designed baffles, and yep, horns, have greater potential. We still have a long way to go.Every processor I've ever auditioned causes listener fatigue (for me at least) in that I can't sit and listen for a half hour or more. I don't know why that happens. My "home theater" is my stereo with flanking and distributed subs, mostly to smooth room nodes. Current speakers are Linkwitz Orions. James, could you provide a couple of links to your type of systems? Thanks.Steve
With all due respect, I posit for most readers there is clear circular reasoning behind your first sentence in your last paragraph. People settle for inferior sound for HT because they never heard it reproduced better. Once you hear HT reproduced right (system performance better than most all all 2-ch systems) you could and would not accept what passes for high end HT audio. Orchestra stages on HT sound tracks are simply huge, imaging is quite good, and there is incredibly natural detail and nuance. Certain HT sound tracks bury any 2-ch playback of any cost. And that's with plain old funky DD and DTS, not TrueHD and not DTS-Master HD Audio (I wonder how much better if at all are the latest HT formats).