It is not you, the sound really is getting worse
Speaking of coaxials for a center channel, how about this DIY kit?? https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/coaxial-speaker-kits/seas-loki-mkii-coaxial-kit-parts-only-eac... |
Yes, turning up the center is a good fix, as is using dynamic range compression available in all modern processors. Still, the honest truth is that dialogue is worse than it was before. Even in carefully calibrated THX theaters LotR had issues, and it’s gotten worse. As some one who started in the pro motion picture sound industry this trend is a huge disappointment. It used to be that theaters were THE high end audio experience for most. Speaking of Toole, he’s done a lot of work in them, so a lot of his writing is from that perspective, and maybe why I agree with him on just about everything. :) We went from motion pictures being the high end, to mediocre boxes, back to the high end with THX and now the directors themselves seem to be trying hard to make it worse. One kind of underlying theme about motion picture sound is the question of what it is there fore. Dolby Surround (ProLogic for the home) made a clear declaration: Motion picture sound is here to excite you, and we don't much care what the mixers want. If you wanted fine sound control you had to use magnetic sound tracks until digital tracks came along. That opened up a whole new set of choices for movie editors. Now sounds could not just surprise you, but immerse you as well, and in many cases I've really enjoyed this kind of recording. The Expanse comes to mind here as a great example. Well, I guess the pendulum is swinging back against delicacy and nuance, and those of us who care about dialogue are going to be left longing for the good old days of mono. |
Just to be clear, @spenav : You and Toole seem to be discussing two different things. You keep saying distortion and dialogue clarity. If we’re talking about on-axis, then nothing Tool is describing really should create a lack of dialogue clarity. The only thing I can think of is if you have a bare floor, which is causing cancellation due to the wide dispersion. However I hear NO dialogue distortion at all. Certainly not like you are describing. Toole is focused on off-axis frequency cancellation, but the floor bounce of the Paradigm CC 208 should be quite similar. On axis, I don’t see how the 3-way inherently resolves distortion, nor can I see how the 2-way would cause it. I wonder if the problem isn’t just that commercial 2-way center channel speakers are bad? :-) Truth is, I haven’t heard a consumer, off the shelf center channel in 15 years at least. If given the chance to listen to systems it was always for music. About 5 years ago I built my own center and never thought about listening to them in a store. Best, E |
I understand where Toole is going with this, and in absolute arguments, comparing them to ideal, he’s right, they are not optimum. In practice I’ve been quite successful. Maybe I accidentally created the best center channel ever??? << laughs >> Sorry, you all know I don’t believe that. Let me share the design I used. It sounds great. It blends seamlessly with my sides, which are simple 2-ways. With a little EQ, and decent room treatment the sound is seamless and there is no extra distortion caused by using an MTM array and it is perfectly fine to the sides as well. https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/03/introducing-lm-1c.html As I’ve alluded to, but not really said, for a counter point to Toole’s arguments, please see Joseph D’Appolito on his eponymous speaker configuration. P.S. The LM-1C uses 2nd and 3rd order filters. |
My experiences with this design have been negative Can you be more specific?? So, let’s talk Toole. Always happy to point out we are not actually disagreeing. I quote your quote: The simple one, often called the “midrange-tweeter-midrange” or MTM, arrangement is usually found in entry-level products but also, occasionally, in some expensive products. In its basic configuration of both woofers operating in parallel, crossing over to a tweeter—a two-way design—it is not optimum because of off-axis acoustical interference. Toole is not calling these poor performers for dialogue quality, by the way, he’s specifically calling out the issues inherent in off axis response of the design. The key points in this discussion are the phrases:
To be clear, the MTM is very similar to a D’Appolito on it’s side. The difference is that where the D’Appolito has issues above/below the center has to the side. Also, as D’Appolito has discovered, they work better with higher order crossovers. I think he recommends a 4th order Linkwitz Riley alignment (electro-acosutical). So, how the MTM is designed matters. I agree with Toole that it’s not optimum, but I also think it’s a fine solution within the constraints of a normal home listening room. These are naturally space limited designs that don’t need very much horizontal dispersion. I’ve made one, and it sounds fine on and off axis. The main issue, as I’ve noted, was NOT the driver to driver interference, but the placement location. It sounded boomy without EQ. Fix that and it is very serviceable. So let’s talk about what would be optimum. Well, a normal tower would work better horizontally, as would a 3-way center with a vertical TM array in the center, BUT (and there’s always a but) ... This arrangement only modestly improves things, and you have to make significant sacrifices in the strength and size of the motors for the tweeter/mid arrangement. In other words, either use 1 great tweeter or much smaller, possibly lower quality, T and M. This design pushing down the Woofer/mid crossover point. OK, so instead of maybe 2 kHz you push this down to 500 to 800 Hz (no lower due to the still very small mid) and the crossover slopes still matter. In theory a 3-way center could be better, but not necessarily and the crossover slopes used and the EQ after placement matter a lot more, as does the quality of the components. Design choices and room correction matter a great deal. I haven’t purchased a commercial center channel, but I can say from my own experience building and listening to one that it is a fine, and sometimes superb solution. Definitely better than no center, and sometimes better than a 3-way. I certainly would NOT say that a 2-way is going to suffer in terms of dialogue quality, either on or off axis just because it is a 2 way. Fortunately dear A’goners, there’s a very simple solution to this while auditioning. Listen. Listen to the dialog and move horizontally around the room. Don’t get stuck in theory when your own ears will reveal if there are any problems. Best, E |
Added to the problem is the design of a lot of center channel speakers. The two midrange drivers with the tweeter in the middle is not a good design in terms of dialogue clarity. @spenav What? It’s a fine design on-axis. Off-axis depends a little on the crossover slopes. Look up D’Appolito alignment. Besides the off-axis response, the other issue is their physical location tends to be in a cabinet or on top of a shelf, requiring some EQ compared to their free standing counter-parts. Everyone knows that modern processors have both automatic room correction and volume compression built-in, right?? Best, E |
The first movie I remember really having a problem with dialogue was LoTR and a small section of Frodo’s dialogue and the Elf Queen. Had to really dial in the EQ on the center channel before it popped out. Later I learned final mixing was done by a studio that bragged about all B&W speakers. Since I don’t use B&W speakers I had to wonder just how specific the mixing was. Will be interesting to learn more about the final mix of Tenet. OT: The sound effects for fire in LoTR were garbage. |
