[pmrogers]

Hi All,

I’d appreciate any advice for me in choosing between these speaker options for my small media room, against-the-wall placement:
 * Mains – HTS, sealed HT2s, or Song Tower?
 * Center – HTS, HTC, Song, or Monster?

I’m looking for the best possible movie sound given 2 big constraints: mid-fi electronics and a small room.  I do not do any music listening in this room, just DVD, HD DVD and blu-ray watching.  My #1 priority for the media room sound is believability of the human voice (NOT necessarily accuracy, just don’t distract me with chestiness or sibilants that don’t integrate to the voice).

The situation in the media room is this:
 * 9’ X 13’ box
 * Speakers must be placed about 2” from the back wall and 5” from the side walls
 * Onkyo NR905 receiver, Velodyne ULD-15 subwoofer
 * Seating position is 10.5’ back, 2.5’ from back wall, ear height 41”

Today I run Tannoy near-field monitors, don’t remember the model but it was their top studio offering about 12 years ago.  The speakers do nothing grossly wrong, however they omit quite a lot.  What I would most like to improve is the rendition of male voices and mid-range detail. 

For reference, my audio-only system, which has the luxury of being in a large, irregularly-shaped room, consists of Martin Logan CLS IIz’s (pure electrostatic with no dynamic drivers), REL Stage subwoofer at 35hz crossover, 280W of Conrad Johnson Premier tube amplification.  My favorite dynamic speakers I’ve heard so far are the Sonus Faber Cremonas, JMLab Grand Utopias, and Dali Helicon 800s.  Other high-end speakers I’ve auditioned but wouldn’t consider great for my taste include: B&W, Wilson, Thiel, Kef, Vienna Acoustics.

My leaning at the moment is toward Song Tower mains plus a Monster center.  A bit of an odd couple, but I would like to get both good voices and strong mid-bass out of the center.  I would rather deal with a bit of mismatch on panning vocals than sacrifice any quality on the primary dialog speaker.  I do worry a bit about the Monster ribbon being unkind to my mid-fi Onkyo amp, though.

Any and all thoughts appreciated!

Paul

[Big Red Machine]

That size room is a challenge.  My first reaction is the ST's are too big for that space.  Where do you live?

[bpape]

Not to be a downer but if the speakers have to be that close to the front and that close to the side, the screen is quite probably too large for the room.

Bryan

[jsalk]

You've got a difficult situation there, but I'll try and give you some opinions.

First, I would rule out the V-Monster center channel.  It is way too much speaker for that room and is not really needed. I would definitely go with a center channel designed to work with the mains you are using. You will probably be crossing over to a subwoofer, so any of the center channels would work just fine for you.  You will likely gain little advantage from the added bass response of the Monster center channel.

So here are some options:

Sealed HT2's would work very well and you could easily use one for the center channel as well.  We would simply re-orient the tweeter so the speaker could be used in the horizontal format.  No problem.  This would be a very nice system with great midrange detail and accuracy.  Hard to beat.

The HTS series speakers would not be as detailed in the midrange, but can be built with crossovers optimized for your situation.  You would basically use "on-wall" versions of the HTS crossovers.

Finally, using SongTower mains and the Song Center would also be an option.  I have not tested SongTowers that close to the rear or side walls.  But when I read your post, I email Dennis Murphy (SongTower designer) and asked his opinion.  He said he tried it once before and tested your scenario this evening himself.  He noted no particular problem using SongTowers that close to the rear and side walls.  The transmission line cabinet seems to be very insensitive to room placement and couples with rooms very well.

I hope this helps.  If you have further questions, please feel free to ask away.

- Jim

[pmrogers]

Thanks for the replies. 

Bpape, the screen is just 80x45 and has worked great with our 8" Runco CRT for 8 years now.  The ~1440p resolution is plenty for a 1.3x seating distance since it is not a fixed-pixel display.  I'm also the sort who considers row 6 or 7 at the cinema to be ideal.

Big Red Machine, I'm in Austin, TX.  In searching here I couldn't find any posts from Austin owners.

Jim, of the 3 speaker options, which would you say has the warmest or sweetest midrange?  Is there one you would pick if you were going to be listening to a lot of solo vocal or small-scale choral material with mid-level production quality?

Thanks again!
Paul
 

[MaxCast]

Hi Paul, how many will be using the room?  If it is just you, you may want to put more money in two main speakers and forgo the center.  I have done that before and enjoyed the results.

Also, don't forget the room treatments.

[bpape]

Hi Paul.

I have no doubt that that PJ/Screen combo looked very very good.  That wasn't really my point.  The point was that you have a screen size that's so big in relation to the room that it pushes you back too far in the room to get the proper viewing angles and also pushes the speakers out perilously close to the wall boundaries.  It's also not an optimal place to sit for best bottom end response.  It's all a system.

When I design a room, I start with seating position first.  Everything else revolves and is sized around that.  Ideally, I'd start you out with your ears about 5' from the rear wall.  That puts you about 8' from the screen and about 7' from the faces of the speakers - which are now 8' apart.

Didn't mean to take the thread off topic - just offering an opinion.  It is what it is.  That said, you can compensate for the close boundary proximity issues by absorbing directly to the side and directly behind the speakers  to minimize the out of phase waves coming back and cancelling some of the bass.  This can become problematic with a rear ported speaker and no subwoofer.  Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with rear porting and the Salks are certainly a very nice speaker (any of them).  I'd just like to see them given the opportunity to be set up and allowed to perform up to their potential.

Bryan

[pmrogers]

MaxCast, it is usually 2 of us in the room, occasionally 4.

Bryan, thank you for the clarification.  I respect your system view of the design.  For me up til now, this room has been prioritized 95% around the video, with any sound better than tolerable considered a bonus.  Now, with lossless movie audio available, I'm interested in improving the sound, but recognize that I'll never have truly great sound in such a small room.  I'll do some studying in the Acoustics circle and make a new post if I have questions about room treatment. 

Back on topic, I do have a pretty good sub in the front center of the room, and the receiver has Audyssey MultEQ to help compensate for some of the room effects.  Do you have an opinion on the importance of the HTS crossovers optimized for on-wall placement?  I'm not sure how to weigh the optimized HTS crossovers vs. the higher resolution of the HT2 without such crossovers. 

For the record, the "1440p" I stated above is completely incorrect; the projector resolves about 1440 horizontal lines cleanly, putting its resolution between 720p and 1080p; I don't think even 9" CRTs can push higher than 1080p. 

Thanks again,
Paul

[jsalk]

Paul -

Jim, of the 3 speaker options, which would you say has the warmest or sweetest midrange?  Is there one you would pick if you were going to be listening to a lot of solo vocal or small-scale choral material with mid-level production quality?

I will try to describe what I feel are the differences between the sound of the three options.

The HT2's (or any of the other Veracity speakers) have never been described as being "warm."  They are extremely accurate and detailed, perhaps more detailed than any of the other options since they have extremely low mass drivers which are very fast.  I think the most appropriate way to describe them is accurate.  They are "high resolution" monitors that faithfully reproduce exactly what is fed to them.  If the recording is warm, they sound warm.  They don't really add much in terms of their own signature to the sound.  If I were listening to solo vocals, these would be my choice as the resulting sound is very natural and real - as if the performers are in the room with you. 

The HTS speakers have a similar type of top end since they also have a ribbon tweeter.  But the midwoofers are not as detailed.  Many times, people interpret higher distortion as warmth.  That would be the case with these drivers.  While very good, they have higher mass paper cones.  This can be an advantage with less-than-ideal source material since they exhibit a higher level of veiling that can mask problems.  But, of course, this means you will not hear all the detail present in a great recording either.

The Song Series speakers are very neutral, very well balanced and they image very well.  They throw a very deep and wide sound stage.  While a little less transparent on the very top end (they do not feature ribbon tweeters) the OW2 tweeters produce about the nicest top end you will likely hear with a traditional dome tweeter.  Although perhaps not quite as detailed as the HT2's, they too are very accurate.  I have never discerned any weakness in these speakers.  And owners seem to mirror those observations.

Do you have an opinion on the importance of the HTS crossovers optimized for on-wall placement?  I'm not sure how to weigh the optimized HTS crossovers vs. the higher resolution of the HT2 without such crossovers.

 

This is all about baffle step compensation.  The HTS series crossovers are available with full BSC when stand mounted, 1/2 BSC for on-wall use and no BSC when mounted flush in a wall.  You are very close to the wall, so you will get some mid-bass/bass reinforcement.  In this case, you may want to decrease the amount of BSC slightly.  But perhaps a better idea would be to treat the wall behind the speakers to minimize reflections.  Bryan can help you with this.  Not only will this help address BSC-related issues, but will also diminish early reflections and keep the sound crisp and clean.  If you can do this, BSC would not be an over-riding concern.

Each listener will have his/her own interpretation of the performance of these speakers.  My personal choice, in order of preference, would be the HT2's, followed by the SongTowers and finally the HTS series speakers.  But, again, this is based on my own personal taste and I am a detail fanatic. I want to hear every subtle nuance of the recording - good or bad. I do not prefer a speaker that adds its own signature to the sound or subtracts detail via higher veiling.  I mention this so you can properly evaluate what my ranking may mean to you.

Perhaps others can comment on their personal preferences.

I hope that helps.

- Jim 

[fsimms]

Jim, of the 3 speaker options, which would you say has the warmest or sweetest midrange?  Is there one you would pick if you were going to be listening to a lot of solo vocal or small-scale choral material with mid-level production quality?

Jim gave a fantastic answer.  Please don't think that anything that I am saying disagrees with Jim.  On the solo vocal or small scale coral,  I would think that the SongTowers would win out since they image so well.  My HT1's image well too, but not as well as the SongTowers.  On all of the other sounds, I don't think that the SongTowers could keep up to the HT2's.   Although the SongTowers are very clear, I do think the SongTowers have a slight warm veil that it gives over the music compared to the HT's.

[BrianM]

Jim, of the 3 speaker options, which would you say has the warmest or sweetest midrange?  Is there one you would pick if you were going to be listening to a lot of solo vocal or small-scale choral material with mid-level production quality?

Jim gave a fantastic answer.  Please don't think that anything that I am saying disagrees with Jim.  On the solo vocal or small scale coral,  I would think that the SongTowers would win out since they image so well.  My HT1's image well too, but not as well as the SongTowers.  On all of the other sounds, I don't think that the SongTowers could keep up to the HT2's.   Although the SongTowers are very clear, I do think the SongTowers have a slight warm veil that it gives over the music compared to the HT's.

I would think one reason the SongTowers image so well is they're an MTM design -- as far as I can see MTMs have a reputation for imaging really well.  Since the HT2s are also MTMs, might they not image just as well as the SongTowers?

[DMurphy]

The MTM radiation pattern may or may not contribute to superior imaging.  I don't think that's ever been tested or derived theoretically.  I just don't know. But the other variable in the ST is its use of smaller woofers.  That will improve dispersion in the 1500-2200 Hz region (the tweet's output will dominate above that), which could also improve imaging.  I haven't done any controlled comparison tests with stereo pairs of the ST's, HT1's, or HT2's, so I really can't add a personal opinion. 

[jsalk]

Well, having spent time with both the HT2's and the SongTowers, I don't think the depth and width of the SongTower's sound stage is related to the MTM format as both speakers are MTM designs.  I think it has more to do with both the smaller midwoofer diameter (as Dennis said) and the narrower front baffle.

- Jim

[BrianM]

Well, having spent time with both the HT2's and the SongTowers, I don't think the depth and wideth of the SongTower's sound stage is related to the MTM format as both speakers are MTM designs.  I think it has more to do with both the smaller midwoofer diameter (as Dennis said) and the narrower front baffle.

Thanks, guess my brain filtered that bit of data wrong somewhere along the way.

[MaxCast]

Paul, why are you considering floor standers with a sub? ...now that I read your posts again.  Where will you be xo'ing the mains.