[Saturn94]

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each speaker arrangement when talking about L&R speakers (not center channels)?

I know that this topic isn't specific to Salk, but I've found some here to be very knowledgeable and thought I might get the best information here.

Thanks.

[DMurphy]

Both approaches have the advantage of increased sensitivity.  You can get away with a shorter cabinet with an MMT for a given tweeter height.  So that's good.  The nice thing about an MTM is that the two woofers will always be in phase with each other no matter what your listening distance, assuming you're listening on the tweeter axis.  With an MMT, the 2 woofs will be at different distances to the listener no matter how close or far back you're listening (although I wouldn't sweat the difference if you listen at one mile).   The crossover designer can work around that by optimizing for the combined woofer signal at a fixed listening position (like 3.5 meters).  But the combined response will start to differ as you move in or out, with different cancellation patterns between the two woofers.  The MTM is also claimed to have more controlled vertical dispersion around the crossover region, but this is very controversial.  I think the MTM approach does give you a little more focused sound, but that would never be a deciding factor for me based on my experience with really good sounding MT and WMT designs. 

[martyo]

Thanks Dennis, I think he was asking about a woofer/mid/tweet, vs. a mid/tweet/mid. Even if he wasn't, I'd like to hear your perspective.

[DMurphy]

Thanks Dennis, I think he was asking about a woofer/mid/tweet, vs. a mid/tweet/mid. Even if he wasn't, I'd like to hear your perspective.

Ooops.   Aging eyes, and that's not the usual question.  Let's see--The main advantage of an WMT is that you can get much better bass response without sacrificing midrange reproduction, assuming the crossover is properly optimized (and that's not easy in a 3-way).  The disadvantage is sensitivity--woofers that go low tend to be lower in sensitivity, and you've only got one of them.  And then there's cost--big woofers can be expensive, and the crossovers are much more elaborate.  If you're using a sub anyhow, then an MTM may be the way to go.  Higher sensitivity, lower cost, and maybe a little more focused sound.  This doesn't apply to a super premium design like the Sound Scape, where the sound will be better than any MTM I know of.  All it takes is a little $$$$$$$

[martyo]

Thanks again Dennis.

[Construct]

MTM is best explained by the inventor:  Joseph D'Appolito, PHD. He has articles all over the web and a few books.  He worked for snell, and designed the "Thor"  DIY speaker kit among others.

[BobM]

Sound Scape?

Link please or more info?

Thanks

[martyo]

Sound Scape?

Link please or more info?

Thanks

It's the new flagship speaker at Salk.

[Mudslide]

Sound Scape?

Link please or more info?

Thanks

WAY too many links to list.  Use the 'search' feature in the forum and type "soundscape" (without the quote marks).  You'll also find it on Salk's website...http://www.salksound.com/

[ArthurDent]

link as requested -

http://www.salksound.com/soundscape%2012%20home.htm

All it takes is a little $$$$$$$

Dennis, isn't/aren't 'a little' and '$$$$$$$' mutually exclusive terms ? 

[Saturn94]

Thanks Dennis, I think he was asking about a woofer/mid/tweet, vs. a mid/tweet/mid. Even if he wasn't, I'd like to hear your perspective.

Yes, that is what I am asking.

[Saturn94]

Ooops.   Aging eyes, and that's not the usual question.  Let's see--The main advantage of an WMT is that you can get much better bass response without sacrificing midrange reproduction, assuming the crossover is properly optimized (and that's not easy in a 3-way).  The disadvantage is sensitivity--woofers that go low tend to be lower in sensitivity, and you've only got one of them.  And then there's cost--big woofers can be expensive, and the crossovers are much more elaborate.  If you're using a sub anyhow, then an MTM may be the way to go.  Higher sensitivity, lower cost, and maybe a little more focused sound.  This doesn't apply to a super premium design like the Sound Scape, where the sound will be better than any MTM I know of.  All it takes is a little $$$$$$$

Thanks for the explanation.

So all things equal, they are just different approaches to the same end?

Do you personally have a preference between the two designs?

[Saturn94]

MTM is best explained by the inventor:  Joseph D'Appolito, PHD. He has articles all over the web and a few books.  He worked for snell, and designed the "Thor"  DIY speaker kit among others.

Thanks.  I'll do a search and see what I find.

[Nuance]

Saturn,

I am not Dennis, but I'd like to offer my $0.02.  If I could own the SoundScapes I would (duh), but I'd order a custom jobby with PEQ for the bass woofers (EQing in-room bass is something I'll never go without).  If using a subwoofer WMT might be a waste, so I guess depends on the individual and how the speaker will be implemented into the system.  Theoretically, though, a dedicated mid "should" sound better, but only if the crossover is proper (as Dennis mentioned).  You'd have to decide if you want the bass slam and depth produced only by the speaker.  If so, a larger woofer with lower sensitivity will probably be the best route.  If not, crossing to a subwoofer will allow using a different configuration with a higher sensitivity.

Again, it just depends on what you need I suppose.  I think the dedicated midrange driver on the HT3 was a touch more resolving than the HT2-TL, but that could just be in my head.  I bet most of us would have a hard time discerning the difference under blind listening conditions.

[Saturn94]

Saturn,

I am not Dennis, but I'd like to offer my $0.02.  If I could own the SoundScapes I would (duh), but I'd order a custom jobby with PEQ for the bass woofers (EQing in-room bass is something I'll never go without).  If using a subwoofer WMT might be a waste, so I guess depends on the individual and how the speaker will be implemented into the system.  Theoretically, though, a dedicated mid "should" sound better, but only if the crossover is proper (as Dennis mentioned).  You'd have to decide if you want the bass slam and depth produced only by the speaker.  If so, a larger woofer with lower sensitivity will probably be the best route.  If not, crossing to a subwoofer will allow using a different configuration with a higher sensitivity.

Again, it just depends on what you need I suppose.  I think the dedicated midrange driver on the HT3 was a touch more resolving than the HT2-TL, but that could just be in my head.  I bet most of us would have a hard time discerning the difference under blind listening conditions.

Thanks for the feedback.

In my case I do use a sub, so would it be your opinion that an MTM design such as the HT2/HT2-TL would be better for me than the HT3?  My current speaker is an ADS L1290/2 (3 way in a WWMT configuration) with my SVS sub handling bass duties.

I also found your comment about using a PEQ with woofers interesting.  I've wondered if in your opinion my system using a sub (SVS 16-46PC+) would greatly benefit using SVS's version of the Audyssey Sub EQ?  If this is too far off topic feel free to PM me.

Also, would there be any difference between a MTM speaker/separate sub combo and a WMT speaker/separate sub combo?

Thanks.

[Nuance]

Not trying to take money away from Jim, but yes, IMO you'd be better off with the HT2-TL's if you're crossing over to a subwoofer. 

I haven't researched SVS's Audyssey Sub EQ, but if its anything like their subs I'd say its worth a try.  PEQ is so valuable to me!  Room interaction is something almost all of us have to deal with, so there is just nothing like properly EQ'd bass below the crossover frequency...well, except the real thing at a live performance.

The WMT/subwoofer combo would be a waste IMO.  This is because you'll be losing sensitivity having to use that larger woofer.  The HT2-TL's punch hard and extend into the 20's, but they are still higher in sensitivity than something with a large bass woofer.  Of course, if you can afford the SoundScapes, just go with those and be happy forever.  No subwoofer required.

[TomW16]

I don't think that there are any wrong approaches just different means to acheive full range sound.  Depending on what your priorities are will help determine what would work best for you.

If a sub is being used satisfactorilly then a 3-way with a large woofer is largely redundant and as people mentioned earlier, it will lower sensitivity.  A sub can theoretically be placed within the room at an ideal place to provide the smoothest bass without having to sacrifice placement of the left and right speakers that can be optimized for imaging.  The difficulty with subs, however, is integrating them seemlessly.

Seemless bass integration with a 3-way is handled by the crossover so you don't have to worry about phase, different levels for mid and bass, etc.  The downside to a 3-way is lower sensitivity and a more complex crossover, which is not only expensive but also difficult to execute well.

I actually went the route of going with a 3-way crossover for music listening and using subwoofers (2 of them) for home theater only.

Good luck.

Tom

[jsalk]

I don't think that there are any wrong approaches just different means to achieve full range sound.  Depending on what your priorities are will help determine what would work best for you.

If a sub is being used satisfactorily then a 3-way with a large woofer is largely redundant and as people mentioned earlier, it will lower sensitivity.  A sub can theoretically be placed within the room at an ideal place to provide the smoothest bass without having to sacrifice placement of the left and right speakers that can be optimized for imaging.  The difficulty with subs, however, is integrating them seamlessly.

Seamless bass integration with a 3-way is handled by the crossover so you don't have to worry about phase, different levels for mid and bass, etc.  The downside to a 3-way is lower sensitivity and a more complex crossover, which is not only expensive but also difficult to execute well.

I actually went the route of going with a 3-way crossover for music listening and using subwoofers (2 of them) for home theater only.

Good luck.

Tom

Very well put.

Theoretically, your should be able to achieve the same results with a sub (or two) and stand-mounted monitors as you could with a 3-way like the Veracity HT3's.  The key is to get perfect integration with the sub.  This is certainly possible, but by no means trivial.  It will take some time and effort.

A good 3-way eliminates the risks as it is plug and play.  The levels and phase are set in the crossover and are as near perfect as can be.  The other advantage of a great 3-way (which is difficult to design and actually quite rare) is that the midrange is only doing midrange duty.

In the HT3, the midrange handles frequencies from about 300Hz to 2200Hz.  In the HT2's, that same W18 handles everything from 2200Hz on down.  So it is producing midrange, mid-bass and deep bass all at once.  It is obviously much easier concentrating solely on midrange and distortion levels are lower.

Of course, you pay a penalty in that sensitivity is lower and cost is somewhat higher (the cost of a pair of 3-ways is much higher, but by the time you factor in the cost of the subwoofer(s), part of that increased cost is offset).

So there are advantages and disadvantages both ways.  As always, speaker design is the art of balancing trade-offs.  There is no free lunch.

- Jim

[Saturn94]

Not trying to take money away from Jim, but yes, IMO you'd be better off with the HT2-TL's if you're crossing over to a subwoofer.

Thanks for the honest assessment.
 

I haven't researched SVS's Audyssey Sub EQ, but if its anything like their subs I'd say its worth a try.  PEQ is so valuable to me!  Room interaction is something almost all of us have to deal with, so there is just nothing like properly EQ'd bass below the crossover frequency...well, except the real thing at a live performance.

From what I've read so far, the Sub EQ from SVS is quite sophisticated, not only smoothing out the frequency response, but also correctly setting distance and phase to properly blend with the main channels.  I need to do a bit more research, but it appears to be a great product.

The WMT/subwoofer combo would be a waste IMO.  This is because you'll be losing sensitivity having to use that larger woofer.  The HT2-TL's punch hard and extend into the 20's, but they are still higher in sensitivity than something with a large bass woofer.  Of course, if you can afford the SoundScapes, just go with those and be happy forever.  No subwoofer required.

Donations can be made to the "Saturn94 SoundScapes Fund".

[Saturn94]

Very well put.

Theoretically, your should be able to achieve the same results with a sub (or two) and stand-mounted monitors as you could with a 3-way like the Veracity HT3's.  The key is to get perfect integration with the sub.  This is certainly possible, but by no means trivial.  It will take some time and effort.

A good 3-way eliminates the risks as it is plug and play.  The levels and phase are set in the crossover and are as near perfect as can be.  The other advantage of a great 3-way (which is difficult to design and actually quite rare) is that the midrange is only doing midrange duty.

In the HT3, the midrange handles frequencies from about 300Hz to 2200Hz.  In the HT2's, that same W18 handles everything from 2200Hz on down.  So it is producing midrange, mid-bass and deep bass all at once.  It is obviously much easier concentrating solely on midrange and distortion levels are lower.

Of course, you pay a penalty in that sensitivity is lower and cost is somewhat higher (the cost of a pair of 3-ways is much higher, but by the time you factor in the cost of the subwoofer(s), part of that increased cost is offset).

So there are advantages and disadvantages both ways.  As always, speaker design is the art of balancing trade-offs.  There is no free lunch.

- Jim

If you don't mind me asking, in my situation (using a quality sub), would you agree with Nuance that the HT2-TL would be a better fit for me than the HT3?