[Danny Richie]

I just uploaded the new info on the A/V-3S.



The A/V-3S is a smaller sealed box version of the A/V-3.

See info:  http://www.gr-research.com/performer/av3s.htm

[RAW]

now surrounds and we are talking HT.
 

[Danny Richie]

Yea, a new wall mounted version of the A/V-1 is in the works that can be used as side wall or rear wall mounted surrounds.

[RAW]

Ok now for a 6.1
2 of the new AV3 for centers
and 4 of the new AV1 surrounds.
Yes


 

[azryan]

Very cool center chan. Danny.

I just sent off my center to ya. You should have it on Fri.
Looks like crap in satin black paint compared to the nice veneer AV3 you just posted, but hopefully you'll find the cabinet to be made well enough and to the right measurments -and not smashed by ups!

My neighbor was all set to get the A/V3 kit when his wife said 'No'. Whipped is the word. hehe

He still says he's going to get the kit though so hopefully I'll be able to work on a pair of those soon. I want to hear that speaker!

As for 6.1... IMO a rear center chan. often sounds like a front center chan. which ruins the point of it being there.
IMO, 5.1 or 7.1 is the way to go.

[JoshK]

Yea, a new wall mounted version of the A/V-1 is in the works that can be used as side wall or rear wall mounted surrounds.

VERY good idea!  I've long been looking for such an animal!

[mnapuran]

I actually sent an email to Danny today asking if he recommended using the AV3-S as surrounds, etc.

Since I do DTS Music, etc I'd really like to have all the speakers in my system timbre matched, etc.

No answer yet... but now I see a surround version of the AV3 is in the works???

[RAW]

What you using for mains.How many channel you running 5.1-6.1-7.1

I would use the same front center and in the rear as well.
If you can use the same speaker all the way around.Providing you have the room.
OPther than that I know Danny is working on a surround AV1.
The bee was put in his cap


Time will tell once they are done.
But as it stands now if they were I can install 2 HT with a 7.1 system using GR line in a week.

So I have been asking about them.

Al

[Danny Richie]

Okay, I have been discussing the rear surround deal with several experts and looking hard into it. I have also been doing some critical listening tests too.

The problem I see with many wall mounted designs is that they are set up as dipoles or close to it in some ways...  Woofers and or woofers and tweeters firing off in all kinds of directions breaking up the signal that was sent to them into different directions without ever accurately reproducing any of the signal that was sent to them.

In most situations though the seating position is in the back third of the room and most are typically further from the front speakers than the rears.

Rears aimed right at the listening position can become a bit overbearing or hot just doe to their close proximity.

Even if digitally delayed and the gained turned down to them they can still be a bit much if they are too close and can be fatiguing.

The rear firing and or rear/front firing designs do add a sense of space, even if only in some frequency ranges, and I think that is what most like about them.

It is the reflected energy that adds distance and depth.

I have found the rear speakers aimed back into the rear wall actually worked really well and only surpassed by firing them up.

Placing them above the ear level even fairly high up on the wall and firing them up toward the ceiling added the sense of depth and distance, while minimizing the high frequency on axis hotness by simply doing away with it. The off axis response in the top two octaves is only reflected to the listening area instead of beaming it an the listening area.

Fatigue then goes away, and the rear speakers are actually accurately reproducing the signal that was sent to them by using a woofer and tweeter together playing on the same plane and in the same direction.

Using them in this way also allows them to be used as side wall surrounds too.

The first one I am working on is a sealed box version of the A/V-1 that fires up into the ceiling but are not at a right angle to the wall. They are tilted slightly out into the room at a 10 degree angle.

I have also come to the conclusion that despite the fact that some formats do send a full range signal to all channels it is still not necessary for rear channels to play full range.

Frequencies below the 50 to 60Hz region are very omni directional and perceiving a direction or location is next to impossible. Plus, most systems are allowing sub-woofers to handle those regions anyway.

No reason the rears should have to cover anything below that range.

After the development of the new up firing A/V-1 (call it the new A/V-1R) I will work on a similar model using the A/V-3S for added output.

Stay tuned.

[RAW]

I like the sounds of that Danny.
10 I think is going to hit it on the head.

Let me know the cabinet size  will you.

Al
PS shipping out Stands and Criterions Friday.

[Hank]

Danny, for 5.1, dipoles and bipoles were it.  Now, Dolby Labs recommends direct firing traditional speakers for the surrounds.  Do you remember mine?  The are triangular, with one face a TM and the other an MT, so there are a tweet and woof working together on each face, but the apex of the triangle is out from the wall so sound is not directed at the seating positions.   One of our local speaker experts says it's the best surround sound he's ever heard.  I actually reverse engineered the Speaker City T62 cabinet.  They gave me the outside dimensions and sold me the drivers and Xovers. http://www.speakercity.com/ht_rear.shtml
You may have some sales resistance from people not wanting to have up-firing drivers because they'll be worried about having to dust/vacuum them periodically.  Take that into consideration.

I just remembered - I need to  order a pair of T-2's for my A/V-3's.

[Danny Richie]

Hank, your dipoles actually work well because they are a full range speaker firing forward and a full range speaker firing back.

This is much better than most designs. It still puts you in an area where you are in a null though. In other words they cancel each other when seated right on axis and you hear mostly the reflected energy from the rear wall and from the front of the room.

Reflected energy from the rear wall is good as it sounds like it is coming from behind you like it is supposed to, but the reflected energy from the front wall does not accurately represent rear channel info. It can sound kind of cool though.

The new one I am working on can be mounted to fire towards the back of the room just as easily as up.

The single mono pole version I am working on can be used as sides or rears and can be turned in any direction. They can even be used as a pair and placed in the same configuration as yours if someone really wants the dipole sound.

You may have some sales resistance from people not wanting to have up-firing drivers because they'll be worried about having to dust/vacuum them periodically.

They have grills.

[Hank]

It still puts you in an area where you are in a null though. In other words they cancel each other when seated right on axis and you hear mostly the reflected energy from the rear wall and from the front of the room.

Exactly, that's the design goal and why they work.

but the reflected energy from the front wall does not accurately represent rear channel info.

Actually, they are so far from the front wall and so low in spl, that there are no detectable front wall reflections, so that's not a problem.

They have grills.

I know, but I still think some people will not want to poke a vacuum cleaner nozzle on the grills.  Anyway, as you say, they can be oriented in any direction.  You might consider offering good strong mounting brackets with them for customer convenience.  I think you'll have success with your new surrounds!

[scooter]

Hank, your dipoles actually work well because they are a full range speaker firing forward and a full range speaker firing back.

This is much better than most designs. quote]

My 2c worth.

The Tri-Poles and QuadPoles have been getting the best reviews as far as enveloping sound goes. In particular based on user reviews that I have read they are significantly better at generating an enveloping sound field.

[_scotty_]

These speaker designs do illustrate the conflict between multi-channel music reproduction which demands imaging accuracy in all directions and
movie SFX which which may have a different goal depending on the directors desires. I have used Magnepan SMG's to good effect as surround speakers aimed at the listening position and 5to7 ft. behind the couch so the sound definitely comes from the rear.

[azryan]

"-The Tri-Poles and QuadPoles have been getting the best reviews as far as enveloping sound goes. -"

How do you and/or who defines 'best reviews'??

From what I've seen of the speaker market tri and quadrapole surrounds seem pretty rare as it is.

That's not to say rare means bad at all.

Also 'X'pole just means how many directions a speaker fires. There are tri and quadrapoles that fire sound in drastically diff. ways from other tri/quads.

IMO surround speakers, like scotty seemed to be saying, is a VERY tough issue 'cuz of the MASSIVE ammount of varibles.

The big ones being...

Optimal output from surround music vs/ DVDs

Number of surrounds

Room placement

Human ears aim away from the rears dulling down even a 'perfectly tonally mathing set of surround/mains from eachother.

Danny... you have any thoughts on tippping up the top end of 'matching surrounds' to counter ears cupped away from them?

Then add number of 'ways' a surround fires...
Messy issue IMO.

I used to be TOTALLY against anything not a monopole, but I now feel 'splattering' the suround channels all over tends to sound better to me on movies.

And while I still feel monopole is better for music, I think if you can't have both options for your HT room then 'splatter' surrounds (of assorted types) is better than monopole.

Currently I have all monopoles though and don't feel the need to change 'cuz it works well and has it's advantages over 'splattering' too.

The whole surround issue though is not that critical IMO.

The 'value' of surround content IMO is WAY lower than the front soundstage.

For the number of rear chans they keep adding, I'm shocked we don't have FRONT surround channels.

You could have two sets of mains and make your soundstage seem very WIDE w/ no holes.

Just some random thoughts.

[satfrat]

azryan,,, don't be shocked?, the Sunfire Theater Grand 3 processor (9.1) does in fact have side-axis speakers that complement the front mains. They are set up so the right side-axis channel will contain 80% of the right main & 20% of the left main's information. The left side-axis channel has 80% of the left main's and 20% of the right main's information. From what Witchdoctor says, they do a very good job of extending/expanding the main speakers soundstage. I also agree with your comment about monopole rears. I used to have wall mounted dipoles back in the Dolby Pro Logic days but now with the advent of 5.1/6.1/7.1 digital surround,,, accuracy is everything in creating the optimum soundstage, especially for music. I have 4 floorstanders,,, all at the same height and I enjoy the accurate surround field as opposed to the diffused surround of yesteryear. Just some rambling rambles,,, Regards, Robin

[_scotty_]

azryan, the frequency response in the rear should be identical to that in the front if fidelity to the source is to be maintained. Directional cues in an artificial sound field need to be created in a manner that as closely as possible resembles what would occur in reality. A direct radiating loudspeaker that interacts minimally with the acoustic environment and has as flat a response curve as possible would fit these requirements.
Frequency response shaping does not occur in real life.                          

In my experience the same demands for superb signal handling and amplification to recreate a sound stage with correct height,width,and depth cues with layering for 2channel also exist for multi-channel reproduction. The above requirements are what has kept me from embracing multi-channel reproduction so far. I would have to vote for another set of alphas for the rear channels even if it looked like over-kill.

[azryan]

satfrat,

Thanks for the info on the Sunfire. I was meaning discrete recorded channels though not a DSP effect.
I'm sure the Sunfire's DSP could sound cool though much like DPL2 can do a good job usually of turning 2 chan into surround (I never listen to music in DLP2 though).

"-I also agree with your comment about monopole rears.-"

But it sounds like you're saying you prefer monopole surrounds and feel it's more accurate?

I was kinda saying that I used to feel that way, but now can see the benefit of 'splattering' sound and kinda think it works better sometimes -though logic tells me that it shouldn't.

I 'wish' monopoles were clearly a more accurate representation of the intent of the surround info, but it just seems that 'splattering' sound does fill the room in a more realistic way -at times.

Or.... 'just sounds better to me'.

Kinda like how tube gear sounds more realistic to me than solid state though measurement-wise the opposite would seem to be proven.

For movies we're mostly talking about studio tweaked or altered sounds anyway or just flat out 'sound effects'.


scotty,

"-azryan, the frequency response in the rear should be identical to that in the front if fidelity to the source is to be maintained.-"

I agree, but your ears cupped towards or away from the same speaker will alter that freq. response you hear.

I know why you disagree though. I understand your point 100%.

"-Frequency response shaping does not occur in real life.-"

Depends on how you mean this, but imagine a plane flying overhead....

The Doppler effect will cause tonal sound of the plane to drastically shift as it passed in front to behind you.
The WHHOOshhhhh sound we all know.


I think the question is... when a producer is mixing multi-chan music and decides to put say a guitar track behind you instead of in front.... do they e.q. it to counter the top end dulling that will occur?

I think they don't.

Is that wrong or right? I think say right and I saw wrong, but it's a matter of opinion.

I think what you're saying is... 'yeah... and that mimics 'real life'.

It's a tricky issue. Personally I'd rather not have that guitar coming from behind me (I think those kinda mixes are totally stupid) but then would prefer the top end tipped up a little to give that guitar the same tonal balance as if it were coming from in front of me?

You can disagree with my preference, but do you see what I'm getting at?

I'm talking a VERY slight tip up too so that the rears tonally match the mains. Even if you totally disagree are two 'sides' are still not very far from eachother.

[_scotty_]

I agree,guitars behind you are not my cup of tea either. If anything occurs behind you in real life then the sound source has a roll off because of your ears aiming forward, it may even be part of the localization process that your brain uses to tell the direction of sound sources. Ideally, if something like a jet passing overhead was to be reproduced in your home
it should have the same spectral and dynamic qualities delivered to the air
in the room as would be present at the live event. The woooossh sound would require this to sound real. Antiphonal music performed in a cathedral , Pink Floyd, and space music are about the only things that I enjoy being in the middle of musically speaking. Recreating artifical sound-scapes from movies or games should still require the imaging accuracy
that comes from direct radiating speakers. I think one of the primary requirements for success in this arena is having a loudspeaker that disappears sonically. Equipement upstream that has significant problems can also reduce the success of the disappearing act of the rear channels.
This may explain the popularity of speakers that bounce sound off the walls first, they call less attention to themselves as a source of discrete sound in surround systems which have significant compromises.