[ebakkest]

Hi y'all, here's my first post and everything...

I'm currently planning a new Home Theater setup to replace the crappy "HT in a box" I've got. I have dabbled in DIY kits before; put together a Seas Argon main speaker kit (I admit, it was pretty easy with prebuilt cabs).

I am going for a full 7.1 setup, we watch plenty of movies but I would also like the 2-channel music to sound really good. Having read up on the Ellis speakers, they seem to fit my budget, and with cabs in pretty veneer (Bubinga? Jarrah? popular here in AU) they would have a high acceptance factor with the significant other too.  

Now the questions...

I'm wondering if others have attempted a full surround setup with these speakers, and what the results were?

I would like to have a long stereo equipment cabinet along most of the front wall below the projected area, and place the 3 front speakers on top of this instead of using stands. Do you think this would work ok?

Due to size considerations, it would be preferrable that the 4 back speakers were smaller than the standard 1801 size. I've read here recommendations that a cab volume around 16 liter with no bass port should work ok, would this work if I made these cabinets less deep to lessen the volume (the depth of the speakers is what I'd need to reduce to fit on shelves).

I'd like to keep shipping cost and wait time down; does anybody have a good lead on aussie cabinet makers? (My wood chopping skills are... limited.)

All comments appreciated.

Eivind

[David Ellis]

I think... there has only been 1 person to use 5 x 1801 speakers in a surround sound setup.  Jim Salk did the cabinets 2-3 years ago.

I... am sure the results were very good, but I didn't directly hear from the customer following installation.

It's very viable to use the 1801 in a 16 liter sealed enclosure.  

I am asked the Home Theater question fairly often, and generally recommend folks consider building the MBOW1 or CAOW1.  I have auditioned these speakers and they are very good.  IMO, they are in the $1500 - $2500 zone commercially.  Dennis did excellent work on them and the results are commensurate.  A few folks have built these speakers and were VERY pleased.

On most occasions the potential customer never buys the 1801 simply because these other (i.e. CAOW1 or MBOW1) speakers are indeed extremely good.  The customer finds little need for anything better for HT.  I generally agree with this sentiment.  While the 1801 is a cleaner speaker, this simply isn't necessary given the very simple nature of HT source material.  

On a complex classical piece of source material, matters change, and the 1801... well...      The results are clearly obvious.

I will also add that the character of the 1801 and MBOW1/CAOW1 are extremely similar.  They are so similar that with a Jazz recording, the is little/no difference between them.  In this regard, I believe it's very viable to use the 1801 for L & R and use one of the other speakers for Center & Rear.  This way the 1801 would be available for 2 channel listening when needed.

I use some big 3-way speakers with a GR130 paper cone midrange driver for my 2-channel projector screen/audio setup in the basement.  I am very pleased with this.  I think a good paper cone is a very wise choice for most listening.

[wildfire99]

This post is an oldie but since I'm still dealing with this problem right now I figure I'll answer it for posterity (though I know I've commented on it before).

I had/have an 1801 setup, 7 channel, for home theater. Now, whether or not this is a good proposition depends entirely on what you are going to do with this theater. I originally purchased and built these a few years ago because, quite frankly, I wanted the best, and the 1801's remain one of the best even to this day. However as David attempted to warn me, they do have their strengths and purposes, and getting Very Loud is not one of them. I'm currently looking at replacing them for the theater, with some less expensive units that do that job of getting Very Loud better.

Here's what you get from an 1801 home theater setup: Clarity, clarity, and more clarity. You will never be be struggling to figure out what dialogue is coming out of the center channel, unless there's something wrong with your electronics or the original recording. You get imaging: the soundstage really does seem like a stage in front of you. You get a set of speakers that does a respectable job going low, if you build them ported. And you get bookshelf-sized speakers, which is a plus if you need that kind of thing.

Here's what you lose with an 1801 home theater setup: Cash, for one. But that's an individual preference. Sensitivity, for two. These speakers want more juice than usual if you're going to be punishing them. But lastly, you lose high SPL capability. I noticed when I started really cranking the system that the sound would get compressed, muffled in a way, during really high transient peaks. The tweeter would do fine, but the woofer seemed to lose it, so it got kind of shrill also. This was only whenever you had a loud cresendo of sound, at levels that probably cause hearing loss if you were to listen at that level for a while. So, while being great if you keep the volume reasonable, the 1801's just don't have that extra steam to get up to 105db while maintaining their composure, and they weren't designed to, from what I understand. They are not party speakers, and with a single driver that's just physics.

If you're going multi-channel audio, then the 105db requirement for peaks is really not a big issue, and the 1801's win by a mile. But for primarily movie watching, I'd look for something with more inherent power handling and radiating surface, like an MTM system with bass bin. As far as ported 1801 versus non-ported? I never noticed a difference in quality, but I did in extension. The port is definately a Good Thing. However, bass is even further cleared up with the use of a good sub taking care of 80hz and below.

I'd say that there is of course, no real reason you couldn't get an 1801 pair for that exquisite stereo experience, and still have enough dough to place some more economical paper-coned speakers as Dave recommends around for the actual HT system (including duplicate mains). And for that, I still like MTMs. If however you are going to keep the audio level reasonably low (and seriously, that's an affront to the cult of Home Theater), then full speed ahead. They work great, and I have never looked back for quality. Like Dave says though, you are really not missing much at all with a bit of a lesser component for movies, and you stand to gain the dynamic range required with a more beefy (if not as agile) system.

[David Ellis]

Very thorough post.  Thanks much for taking the time to write it! Your notes will certainly be a reference point for future folks asking about home theater and the 1801s.

I don't clearly recognize your moniker, but do... you live in the Northeast... maybe Oregon/Idaho? 

Also, for my front screen projector, I generally don't listen very loud, but I do have a pair of very big 3-way paper-coned speakers (DIY of course) that rest adjacent the screen.  Imaging is darn good, and the lack of detail due to the paper cones is very acceptable.

Strangely, I think... I am getting old.  I like to hear a movie, but really don't care to feel the rumble of the movie.  The rumble was cool for a the first few occasions, but the fascination wore off - at least for me.  And, I am only 39 years old  .

Dave

[wildfire99]

North... West. Washington.

At times I've noted that I don't like the rumble either, but generally that happens only if either 1) the mix is so poorly done that there's more sub-30hz information than 80hz+ information, or 2) the room and/or sub has a resonance down low that kind of vibrates your head and gives you a bit of a headache (boominess). You don't have to *hear* #2 for it to be a problem, only feel it. Still, depending on what you watch, there are way too many movies nowadays that are mixed way too hot, to help out weak budget systems. I don't think you're getting old, I think movie soundtracks are just getting way overcooked. There's nothing like (IMO) a good mix, a good sub, and a "rumble" that is clean and palpable, and not boomy. Rumble sucks, pressurization is where it's at, assuming that the boom was not actually recorded on the mix.

I've got a pair of $100 Big-Box speakers (that probably cost $5 to make), and they do fine for general movie watching. Where the cheap stuff falls down is with the center. I've had $350 centers than can't keep up with just a basic stereo pair of $50 junk mains, and I wish I knew why. It's either boxy/colored, muffled, or so directional (beaming) that it's painful. Sometimes with the low-end stuff, I just turn the center off and go with phantom imaging, and it sounds better. I think that's just the curse of poly drivers, which are in nearly everything in retail.

(As a funny side note... with the 1801 theater setup, I've had several people get freaked out, thinking that the sounds from the movie were real. Especially very low, subtle sounds like background talking in a restaurant, or cars/gunfire in the distance. It's also the only HT setup where I felt the center channel really added to the seamless quality of the front soundstage, instead of being an artificial insert. Oh well, you can't have everything.)

[David Ellis]

with the 1801 theater setup, I've had several people get freaked out, thinking that the sounds from the movie were real.

I find this very funny  , but only because I have answered the telephone and door a few times during a movie - only to find out that it was the movie soundtrack  .

Some of those old big-box speakers were really decent - back in the 70s and early 80s.  They might look like old technology, but IMO many of these speakers are much better than the common commercial stuff sold today.  The only problem with many of those older speakers was the foam surround.  I believe foam is the best surround material, but many types of foam will rot fairly quick.  It's quite common for older speakers to have very "holy" surrounds.

Dave

[Geoff C]

I've always been set on getting the 1801s for my 2-channel mains.  Just not the cash/time yet.  And I have too flirted with the idea of doing a 5.1 setup for my SACD's and 5.1 music, plus any HT use.

Here's my small problem:  the tv stand I built and use, has a horizontal space below for a traditionally shaped center, 42" wide by 10-3/4" tall.  This rules out the 1801's or MBOW1, unless I were to lay them on their side.  Now, I wouldn't do that to the 1801, but might consider doing that with the MBOW1 if it wouldn't destroy the sound.

My current cheap center just plain sucks, muffled sounds and speech.  My seating arrangement is a bit off too, so using a well focused 2-channel front setup doesnt really work.

So I guess my options are to:
-build a mbow1 and turn it sideways
-have dennis design a wider, perhaps mtm with the same speakers to somewhat timber match the 1801's
-take a shot in the dark and build another diy kit from GR or Selah or someone and hope it matches enough for HT
     this selah would work size wise and it uses Seas drivers, but a ribbon tweater: http://www.selahaudio.com/id14.html  and it is 4 ohm, my system doesn't want to go below 8 ohms.
-take a shot in the dark and buy a commercial speaker and home it is timber matched enough to the 1801's

ideas?

[amplifierguru]

Hi Dave,

The only problem with many of those older speakers was the foam surround.  I believe foam is the best surround material, but many types of foam will rot fairly quick.  It's quite common for older speakers to have very "holy" surrounds.

Those old foam surrounds would rot quickly in the environment of the formaldehyde that seeped from the cut MDF boxes. Modern foams may not, I don't know. They were reminescent of the coal mine canary really.

Cheers,
Greg

[mjgeorge]

By the way, here's a picture of another 1801 based 5.1 setup Jim Salk recently completed for a recording studio.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=32014.0

[Geoff C]

By the way, here's a picture of another 1801 based 5.1 setup Jim Salk recently completed for a recording studio.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=32014.0

doh!

droooool......

[Geoff C]

ok, so I'm spamming a bit here, but after doing some more searching, I had some thoughts.

I could build a LCR type setup with 1801F's for my mains, and an 1801 on its side for the center, and use an OmegaStar 240/3EX amp in the same enclosure to power the 3 of them.  I drew it up in cad, looks great.

[David Ellis]

build a mbow1 and turn it sideways

I think the MBOW1 is a fabulous smaller speaker and a very wise choice for HT, but....no, don't turn it sideways.  Maintain an upright orientation per the Tomlinson Holman Experiment specifications (THX).  The phase situation is better with an upright orientation.  To keep the same cabinet volume, build the cabinet deeper or wider. 

If you wish to use the 1801 for center, I also recommend keeping the drivers upright and re-shaping the cabinet.

Oh, the MBOW1 is also extremely close to the 1801 with regard to voicing.  I a/b tested a pair with a simple Diana Krall Jazz track, and was very surprised.  They are very similar, and I see no problem using a center MBOW1 and L/R 1801b speakers. 

-have Dennis design a wider, perhaps mtm with the same speakers to somewhat timber match the 1801's

No, and a sideways mounted MTM conveys the antithesis of good engineering  .  I don't know what marketing department started this trend, but IMO they should be awarded a huge sum of $$ for selling a lie.  The midrange/woofer drivers in a sideways MTM have significant cancellations when moving off axis to the left/right.  I do find them audible and will not purvey such a product.  I believe Dennis will agree.  I also find it deplorable that any respectable hifi company would sell this.  It is wrong, wrong, wrong  .  But...  the marketing department thought that appearance was more important than sound quality.  Sadly  the markting department was and is correct.

Again, the original Tomlinson Holman  Experiment (THX) specified a vertical center channel speaker.  This makes good sense and IS good engineering.

-take a shot in the dark and build another diy kit from GR or Selah or someone and hope it matches enough for HT.  This selah would work size wise and it uses Seas drivers, but a ribbon tweeter: http://www.selahaudio.com/id14.html  and it is 4 ohm, my system

I don't recommend this, but can't fully explain the variables.  My ears believe that the tweeter (not the woofer) is more important for matching, but... this is from 2 speakers (MBOW1 and 1801) designed by the same Dennis Murphy.  There certainly are difference in voicing among different crossovers, and THIS could be controlling variable.  Hmmmm, thinking... both Jim Salk and I found the 1801 and Veracity 2-way to sound extremely similar.  Jim's Veracity 2 way uses a good Arum Cantus ribbon and the W18EX (slightly more sensitivity and less bass reach).  I must also offer that I think that Jim's ribbon tweeter is a good ribbon tweeter.   

-take a shot in the dark and buy a commercial speaker and home it is timber matched enough to the 1801's

This would be a VERY poor idea.  The likelihood of finding something that is close in quality and tonality is almost nil.  But, the sonics of the Accuton driver are very similar to the 1801, and I believe the quality of the Kharma speakers is very good overall.  This unit has the midrange driver immediately below the tweeter to reduce phase problems : http://www.kharma.com/_images/products/exquisite/centre.jpg .  Unfortunately, it has a different tweeter and will likely have different voicing than the 1801.

I recommend you built a single MBOW1 to get a "taste" of how it sounds.  I believe you will be surprised and find it very capable.  I know of a few guys who use a MBOW1 or CAOW1 for L/R speakers in very decent 2 channel systems.

You should probably read my comments here too: http://www.ellisaudio.com/cc.htm

I hope reading this wasn't too arduous. 

I also apologize if I offended anyone working in an MTM center channel marketing department.  But, please consider that my comments actually offer very laudable praise for being able to successfully sell a very questionable product  .

Dave

[Geoff C]

Dave, as always, thanks for the very thorough and helpful reply.  I do like the idea of resizing an 1801 or mbow for the center.  And its very interesting that you find the tweet more important for similar voicing.  I would have guessed the mid's.

I also like your idea of trying a single mbow1 kit first to hear a sample of it and the 1801.  I'll do that right away, and just build a quick demo standard cabinet for now.

Thx!

[David Ellis]

And its very interesting that you find the tweet more important for similar voicing.

As mentioned...I am not 100% certain about this. 

Also, for clarification, when I convey the word "voicing", I am referring to the crossover slope, integration, and general contour of the frequency response.  I think this could be the controlling variable.

Dave

[TomW16]

I also apologize if I offended anyone working in an MTM center channel marketing department.  But, please consider that my comments actually offer very laudable praise for being able to successfully sell a very questionable product  .

You put a smile on my face when I read your quote above Dave.  You should be a politician  .  I read your web page on the center channel and for the most part I agree with you about the center channel, especially if there are no listeners outside of the sweet spot but I believe that there would be a justification for a center channel assuming:
1) Listeners are outside of the sweet spot and
2) The center channel mix is mono, which would reduce the phasing errors between speakers.

Take care,
Tom

[EProvenzano]

Hi Dave.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you referring to the phase errors caused by the difference in arrival time from each woofer at the cross-over point, causing nulls as you pan left or right of center?

If I understand you correctly, if I were to take a MTM center channel and tip it up vertically, these problems should be nullified?

Thanks.

[David Ellis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you referring to the phase errors caused by the difference in arrival time from each woofer at the cross-over point, causing nulls as you pan left or right of center?

Yep.

If I understand you correctly, if I were to take a MTM center channel and tip it up vertically, these problems should be nullified?

If I understand you correctly, if I were to take a MTM center channel and tip it up vertically, these problems should be nullified?

Yep, but your ears really should be between the woofers vertically.  There is more to this issue than just the position of the drivers.  Crossover design is significant too.  I don't know if Joe D'Appolito's paper on the MTM is public domain, but it's documented in his book titled Testing Loudspeakers.

Dave

[Geoff C]

ok, so if I keep the internal volume of the CBOW1 at .372 c.f., and resize it just enough to fit vertically, it would look like this:


So, it looks like it can't be a perfect vertical orientation of the drivers, but still should work, what do you think?  (BTW, I already emailed Dennis to see what he thinks).
I'm thinking with the larger 1801, resizing it would really put the drivers out of vertical with the larger woofer.

[David Ellis]

I don't see any problem with this, but Dennis should confirm.

Dave