Your opinion on these for a center.

[tcarcio]

As some of you may know I am useing a pair of Behringer B52's for my mains and a Boston acoustics vr-12 for my center. The 52's are 15'' drivers so I have been thinking about changing my center to something more compatible with them. Here are the specs on these speakers.
http://wsapi.infospace.com/clickserv...D&_IceUrl=true
http://cgi.ebay.com/15-Inch-Karaoke-...1%7C240%3A1318
My question is would it be worth doing this or will the VR-12 be good to go. I know I am just asking for opinion but you guy's have been the go to guy's on other parts of my system and have not steered me wrong yet. Thanks...

[jackfish]

I wouldn't think matching a 15" driver in your mains with a 15" driver in your center is imperative. The center should excel in the midrange. The Boston Acoustics VR-12 is a good center channel speaker and far exceeds the quality of your main speakers.

[tcarcio]

Thanks Jay, I was thinking with all talk on matching timbre and all that it would be a better idea. I think the VR-12 is an excellent center and it sounds great but I got to thinking that something along the same lines of the mains would be even better. I think you got it right though and I suppose if it aint broke I shouldn't fix it. Although I am guilty of doing just that. Thanks .......

[JCD]

I think I agree with both.. the midrange is going to be the important part of a center, but, at least to me, getting a seamless transition across the front three speakers is pretty critical.

Given that, I might be inclined to go with another 52. Overkill with the bass, but worth it for the seamless transition.

[tonyvdb]

I know your not likely to consider this but you would actually be better off Keeping the centre channel you have (BA VR12) and getting some matching Boston acoustic speakers for the mains. What do you currently use for a sub?

[avaserfi]

JCD wrote:

I think I agree with both.. the midrange is going to be the important part of a center, but, at least to me, getting a seamless transition across the front three speakers is pretty critical.

Given that, I might be inclined to go with another 52. Overkill with the bass, but worth it for the seamless transition.

I agree with this completely.

[jackfish]

Pitch - the property of sound that varies with the frequency of vibration
Loudness - the magnitude of sound (usually in a specified direction)
Timbre - the quality of a sound independent of its pitch and volume, the distinctive property of a complex sound

Technically, timbre matching has nothing to do with the sound amongst speakers but the sound between speakers. A given sound in front of us sounds different if sourced behind us. That's because of the shape of our outer ear and is part of how we can tell where a sound is coming from (the other is the relative amplitude in our two ears). In home theater though, sounds which are panned from the front of the room to the back, or vice versa, can lose continuity because of this auditory reality, since halfway from rear to front the panned sound is actually coming at us from BOTH in front and behind. Timbre Matching in a THX-certified system applies a generic HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function) to reshape the surround sound speakers' sound so that it is a closer match to what we hear from the front channels, closing the "seam" between the front of the room and the rear. Hence, timbre matching ensures sounds move smoothly between the speakers.

Many people and "experts" call matching the sound amongst separate loudspeakers so they are similar "timbre matching". This timbre matching never existed in theaters, and is largely a fabrication of speaker makers who want you to buy 5 or 7 of their top of the line speakers all at once. Indeed, placement alone will change the sound amongst like speakers. However, I will grant that matching the sound of main speakers and the center speaker may be discernable, but it is likely to be unnecessary between the mains and surrounds.

In addition, it is likely that in most small home theater systems a center channel speaker is unnecessary as the center speaker was actually developed for use in large commercial theaters to address discrepancies between listening positions due to the extreme width of theater. The use of the center speaker in home theater was likely a carryover from commercial setups and the desire of loudspeakers companies to sell you another speaker. In small systems where the main speakers are not that far apart, the well understood science of stereophonic sound will produce any required center channel program material.

Your thoughts?

[tcarcio]

tonyvdb wrote:

I know your not likely to consider this but you would actually be better off Keeping the centre channel you have (BA VR12) and getting some matching Boston acoustic speakers for the mains. What do you currently use for a sub?

I really don't have the budget to buy new mains although I would love to. I have to get along with what I have and I actually like the sound from them but if and when I do replace them I want to get something nice not just something I can afford at the time, if you know what I mean. I have 2 diy subs 1 small sealed 1.2cf box with an ED 13ov.2 stacked on a sealed 4cf box with the Shiva X so I think I am fine with the subs I got.

[tcarcio]

[QUOTE=jackfish;

In addition, it is likely that in most small home theater systems a center channel speaker is unnecessary as the center speaker was actually developed for use in large commercial theaters to address discrepancies between listening positions due to the extreme width of theater. The use of the center speaker in home theater was likely a carryover from commercial setups and the desire of loudspeakers companies to sell you another speaker. In small systems where the main speakers are not that far apart, the well understood science of stereophonic sound will produce any required center channel program material.

Your thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Well I would agree with that if, as you stated, all that I listened to was stereo and all the info was added to the mains but with all dialog comeing from the center nowadays it looks like the speaker companies have won that battle. Or am I misunderstanding?

[tcarcio]

JCD wrote:

I think I agree with both.. the midrange is going to be the important part of a center, but, at least to me, getting a seamless transition across the front three speakers is pretty critical.

Given that, I might be inclined to go with another 52. Overkill with the bass, but worth it for the seamless transition.

I was also toying with the idea of building a center channel with maybe a 15'' a couple of 8'' midrange and a tweeter to try and match up with the 52's.

[JCD]

jackfish wrote:

Many people and "experts" call matching the sound amongst separate loudspeakers so they are similar "timbre matching". This timbre matching never existed in theaters, and is largely a fabrication of speaker makers who want you to buy 5 or 7 of their top of the line speakers all at once. Indeed, placement alone will change the sound amongst like speakers. However, I will grant that matching the sound of main speakers and the center speaker may be discernable, but it is likely to be unnecessary between the mains and surrounds.

I TOTALLY agree with the placement statement. Room acoustics (and speaker placement being a part of that) is, after the speaker itself, the most important and overlooked area in a system.

I agree with your last statement there -- matching the front three is more important that matching the front to the back. I don't think it's unnecessary as I still think the ideal would be to have the same speaker all around. I can buy in to the idea that they will sound different due to their position, but I think it helps to avoid the "stutter" from front to back or back to front that might occur. That being said, I'd look at saving a little buy downgrading the back to improve the front.

I disagree in principle with some of your other statements. I think most speaker manufacturers actually push a 5 or 7 same-speaker system, rather, they push the di/bi-poles (at least they did for a while), floorstanders in front and "bookshelves" in back. Then, there is the fallen over center channel. I've found that the di/bi-poles and center channel speaker are/were actually more expensive than the fronts oftentimes since they needed more drivers/parts quite often. Where I see manufacturers using the same speaker all around is often in the budget/HTIB or Bose systems where the main speakers are so small and cost is such a motivator, that they skimp on ALL of the speakers.

As for "not being in theaters". That's OK to me -- I'm hoping the sound in my system is better than theaters.

In addition, it is likely that in most small home theater systems a center channel speaker is unnecessary as the center speaker was actually developed for use in large commercial theaters to address discrepancies between listening positions due to the extreme width of theater. The use of the center speaker in home theater was likely a carryover from commercial setups and the desire of loudspeakers companies to sell you another speaker. In small systems where the main speakers are not that far apart, the well understood science of stereophonic sound will produce any required center channel program material.

Your thoughts?

I agree partly about the center. When someone with limited funds wants to develop a 5.1 or 7.1 system, I have suggested getting the center channel last for the same reasons you mention. However, I think it's still a good part to have in a typical HT for at least a couple of reasons:
1) Since most systems aren't set up all that well, using a center is going to do a better job of anchoring the (typically) dialog to the middle of the screen
2) If the left and right speakers don't have to reproduce the duties of the center, I think they'd do a better job of handling the duties of the left and right speakers.

Just my thoughts and ramblings..

[JimP]

If you have a problem getting a matching center channel, try putting your speaker setup to "no" center channel and allow you front mains handle your center channel dialog as a phantom speaker.

[thxgoon]

tcarcio wrote:

I was also toying with the idea of building a center channel with maybe a 15'' a couple of 8'' midrange and a tweeter to try and match up with the 52's.

This could be tough as you'd need to match the response to your mains. Perhaps you could reverse engineer the 52's? Having properly matched speakers in your system is IMHO a good idea. An extra 15... yeah .

In addition, it is likely that in most small home theater systems a center channel speaker is unnecessary as the center speaker was actually developed for use in large commercial theaters to address discrepancies between listening positions due to the extreme width of theater.

The center channel can be considered the most important speaker in the system as it is by far the most used. Locking dialog and other effects to the center of the screen is important in the home too as seating angles can be pretty dramatic. Unless you like to stick your head dead center and leave it there it would be hard to get the imaging that the filmmakers intend. It also relieves your mains of the duty and increases dynamic range.

[tcarcio]

[QUOTE=thxgoon;139694]This could be tough as you'd need to match the response to your mains. Perhaps you could reverse engineer the 52's? Having properly matched speakers in your system is IMHO a good idea. An extra 15... yeah .


Well you guy's have certainly given me something to think about and I thank you. I think I will take my time and do what I think is right after some more study, Thanks....

[rgk5]

Look for a center that has a flat frequency response from 80hz on up. Test with male and female voices and if there are no chesty or nasal colourations, you are golden.

[tcarcio]

I was actually thinking about something like a studio monitor. I am going to stop at my local music store and see if I can listen to some.

[rgk5]

They can work but some tend to be bright through the upper midrange like the Yamaha NS-10 of years ago.