What Surround/Satellites to go with Array 1400s?

[LeBon]

I am planning a home theater using my Array 1400s, Array 880 and Array 1500s. I am thinking about doing Audyssey DSX High and Wide speakers, in addition to side and rear surrounds for a 9.2 or 11.2 configuration.

I know JBL recommends the S4ai in-wall surround speaker. What speakers do you think would best match the Array 1400s for high/wide satellites and side/rear surrounds?

[youngho]

I am planning a home theater using my Array 1400s, Array 880 and Array 1500s. I am thinking about doing Audyssey DSX High and Wide speakers, in addition to side and rear surrounds for a 9.2 or 11.2 configuration.

I know JBL recommends the S4ai in-wall surround speaker. What speakers do you think would best match the Array 1400s for high/wide satellites and side/rear surrounds?

I am also planning a home theater using the 1400s but an 800 for the center. I had picked up a bunch of JBL Control Now speakers for use as side and rear surrounds, mainly for the flexibility of placement (I am assuming EQ below 1 kHz). You can see measurements of the Control CRV, which is largely similar, at http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?docid=1388&doctype=3. Good luck,

Young-Ho

[Titanium Dome]

I am planning a home theater using my Array 1400s, Array 880 and Array 1500s. I am thinking about doing Audyssey DSX High and Wide speakers, in addition to side and rear surrounds for a 9.2 or 11.2 configuration.

I know JBL recommends the S4ai in-wall surround speaker. What speakers do you think would best match the Array 1400s for high/wide satellites and side/rear surrounds?


My Synthesis® One Array system uses the S4Ai surrounds with its SAM1HF and SAM2LF fronts. It seems like a really great match, and I'd be cautious about using any traditional direct radiator speakers for the sides and surrounds. I'm sure speakers could be made to work well, but the spatial and timbrel strengths of the S4Ai are special in an Array Synthesis® system. Even the Synthesis® Four system now specs the S4Ai.

Now high and wide might be another matter. I actually bought an extra pair of S4Ai speakers in anticipation of additional channels, but I'm not so sure that they'll work as well in that situation. I'll need to learn more about the intent of these channels and whether pinpoint or diffuse sound cues are desired. The S4Ai can be configured to be simply direct into the room radiators, but it seems like overkill to not use 2/3 of the speaker's drivers.

You can always look at something from the old Performance Series stable, such as P520WS, P941, or P81.

[LeBon]

Thanks for the input. I'm also considering the Procella P6 for surrounds. But they are a little pricey, like the JBL S4Ai

[Mr. Widget]

Thanks for the input. I'm also considering the Procella P6 for surrounds. But they are a little pricey, like the JBL S4AiThose look interesting... not sure what they cost, but these from JBL Pro and available from JBL Pro or a Synthesis dealer are quite affordable if you have the space.

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getfile.aspx?doctype=3&docid=1360


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Are you sure you want to go with the high and wide speakers? I have only heard one demo, but even though it was highly controlled and put on by Audyssey, it really failed to impress me. Even with Tom Holman grinning from ear to ear as he "showed us" what we were missing.

I left feeling like it might make the experience better for a few minutes of perhaps two movies ever made. Does it make sense to buy into something that limited?


Widget

[LeBon]

I'm really only thinking in terms of pre-wiring for high/wide speakers. I have not heard a demo yet, and have not gotten good reports from those whose opinions I respect. In the immortal words of Harry Truman, "I'm from Missouri -- Show me."

But I am thinking in terms of "full-range" monopoles for the surrounds.

[Valentin]

Then the array 800 are the deal ( full range monopole)
A full array series is a killer system if not i would go with the s4ai

[LeBon]

The problem with using the Array 800 as a surround is that it is unwieldy to wall-mount. Surrounds really should be a couple of feet above ear level, IMO.
I will probably need to elevate the Array 1400s to get the horns up around the center of my screen.

[Valentin]

The problem with using the Array 800 as a surround is that it is unwieldy to wall-mount. Surrounds really should be a couple of feet above ear level, IMO.
I will probably need to elevate the Array 1400s to get the horns up around the center of my screen.

not really, some nice stands will do the trick, and the maching would be perfect in dispersion and timbre.

surrounds optimaly should be at ear hight but practicaly an for the sake of more spectators and elevated seats you put them higher

[rdgrimes]

Resurrecting this old thread to see if anyone has new thoughts on this. I'm currently using PT800 for surrounds in a 7.1 setup. 1400 and 880 in front.
Even with pink noise, the PT800 has a very similar voice, and so far seems a pretty good mix. I was pondering 800s on stands for surrounds, but I'm thinking I don't need them. All the recommendations are basically 3-way 8" designs.

[Mr. Widget]

Resurrecting this old thread to see if anyone has new thoughts on this. I'm currently using PT800 for surrounds in a 7.1 setup. 1400 and 880 in front.
Even with pink noise, the PT800 has a very similar voice, and so far seems a pretty good mix. I was pondering 800s on stands for surrounds, but I'm thinking I don't need them. All the recommendations are basically 3-way 8" designs.We did a theater with 880s as the surrounds but it was really overkill. I've been told that JBL is making a new in-wall based on the 800 Array... that may be interesting. Realistically I think any competent speaker will do the job.


Widget

[audiomagnate]

We did a theater with 880s as the surrounds but it was really overkill. I've been told that JBL is making a new in-wall based on the 800 Array... that may be interesting. Realistically I think any competent speaker will do the job.


Widget
I agree. I think positioning - especially proper height - and adequate dynamic capability are important, but the suggestion that the rears be tonally identical to the fronts is just marketing hype to sell more speakers from the same company. How often do voices come from the rears after all?

[1audiohack]

I agree. I think positioning - especially proper height - and adequate dynamic capability are important, but the suggestion that the rears be tonally identical to the fronts is just marketing hype to sell more speakers from the same company...

Agreed. In real theaters the boxes hanging on the side walls share no common components with the front mains. They are purpose built though.

Barry.

[rdgrimes]

I agree. I think positioning - especially proper height - and adequate dynamic capability are important, but the suggestion that the rears be tonally identical to the fronts is just marketing hype to sell more speakers from the same company. How often do voices come from the rears after all?

Music is the thing. Dissimilar speaker voicing can make multichannel music sound just plain bad. You might not appreciate that if you don't listen to 5.1 music, or if you've never used all identical speakers.

I agree the 880 is overkill for surrounds. But it wouldn't be the first time that was done. (overkill I mean) But where on earth would you ever find 4 of them? :blink:

I'm sticking with the PT800 for now, its such a terrific speaker and it has the advantage of already being attached to the walls. ;)

[1audiohack]

Opps, all I saw mentioned was theater.

Barry.

[Mr. Widget]

I agree the 880 is overkill for surrounds. But it wouldn't be the first time that was done. (overkill I mean) But where on earth would you ever find 4 of them? :blink:
Interesting statement. In my world most people buy new speakers... I imagine if I ordered a hundred of them it might take a bit of time to have the order filled, but four isn't an issue.

Like Barry, I was thinking surround sound as in HT. For a music system, I agree you do want the speakers to be voiced as closely as possible.


Widget

[JeffW]

I agree the 880 is overkill for surrounds. But it wouldn't be the first time that was done. (overkill I mean) But where on earth would you ever find 4 of them? :blink:



I still kick myself for not buying an 880 when Harman was doing their "closeout" deal a few years back. RobH got the last one, and his posting that he had scored it made me realize I had missed that unit when perusing the offerings. Now they sell for about 4X what those were going for :crying:

[hsosdrum]

Agreed. In real theaters the boxes hanging on the side walls share no common components with the front mains. They are purpose built though.

Barry.

Yep. Surround channels for film do a completely different job than surround channels for multi-channel music. Surround speakers in real movie theaters are not intended to reproduce discrete music sources the way they do in a home setup playing 5.1- or 7.1-channel music; they're designed for a film's ambient effects and momentary directional effects, so a tonal mis-match with the screen channels does not interfere with the illusion they're designed to create. In fact, it helps the illusion, since there is a tonal shift in real-life sounds as they arrive at our ears from different angles or move around our heads. And the comb-filtering created by the differing arrival times from multiple surround speakers would negate any carefully-matched tonal similarity between a theater's surround channels and screen channels.

The keys to creating a believable film surround illusion in a home are 1) Placement. The surround speakers must be located far above the listeners' heads. Real ambient sounds are perceived as coming from above, so locating the surround speakers high up increases the realism of this illusion, and 2) Less-specific directionality. Real ambient sounds are more difficult to localize than are sounds that occur in front of our heads. Speakers that broadcast sound so that its source can be easily localized don't work as well when only 2 surround speakers are employed as do speakers that make it harder for the brain to determine where the sound is coming from. Having timbre that closely matches the screen channels is a distant third behind the previous two qualities.

HOWEVER, if your system is primarily intended to reproduce 5.1- and/or 7.1-channel music, the #1 attribute of the surround speakers should be having timbre that matches the front channels as closely as possible.

And for both film reproduction and multi-channel music reproduction, the center speaker should be identical to the left and right speakers. Period. The less identical it is, the less good the system will sound with both films and multi-channel music. I guarantee that a system with 3 Array 1400s across the front will outperform one with 2 Array 1400s for left/right and 1 Array 880 for center when playing films and multi-channel music. I realize that in most cases using 3 identical speakers across the front is impractical, but anything less than that is a compromise, no ifs, ands or buts. (Of course, pretty much everything about audio reproduction is some sort of compromise. The crux of the biscuit is making the ones that you can best live with.)

[rdgrimes]

Using ANY center speaker is a trade-off. Virtually everything will sound better coming from 2 front speakers compared to one. Phantom center setups are under-used and under-rated.

[JeffW]

Using ANY center speaker is a trade-off. Virtually everything will sound better coming from 2 front speakers compared to one. Phantom center setups are under-used and under-rated.

Wanna sell that 880? :D

[hsosdrum]

Using ANY center speaker is a trade-off. Virtually everything will sound better coming from 2 front speakers compared to one. Phantom center setups are under-used and under-rated.

When program material is created with the intent that it be reproduced via an L/C/R front-channel setup (all films made since 1976 and a large number of multi-channel music recordings), playing it back without a dedicated center channel (i.e. via phantom center) will always be 100% wrong.

You may like it better, but it will still be wrong, because unlike stereo music recordings, which are created in studios built to absolutely no consistent acoustic performance standards (therefore there's no objective reference for how the recording is supposed to sound), film soundtracks and many multi-channel music recordings are created in dubbing stages that are built to adhere to SMPTE acoustical performance standards and all sound pretty much the same. This results in an objective reference for how their creator intends them to sound. Since all dubbing stages (100% of them) have a dedicated center channel and speaker (large ones have 5 screen channels), and since all film soundtracks and many (if not most) multi-channel music recordings are mixed for reproduction via 3 front channels (L/C/R), reproducing them with a phantom center is wrong. You may like it better, but you're not hearing what the artist intended you to hear. You can put on a pair of tinted glasses to look at the Mona Lisa and think "Wow, the flesh-tones are even more realistic; I like this better!", but you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking that you're seeing what Da Vinci wanted you to see. (I won't even get into how the comb filtering that phantom center creates changes the sound by altering the spectral balance of any sound that's reproduced equally by both speakers.) Again, I'm only talking about films and music created with the intention of being reproduced through an L/C/R system. With 2-channel music recordings all bets are off.

And phantom-center systems will only work for a single listener, which I've always thought is one of the biggest reasons why high-end audio will always remain a very small "niche" hobby: you can't share the experience. You can take turns sitting in the sweet-spot, but somebody's always on the outside looking in. Using a dedicated center channel eliminates this "winner-take-all" aspect of music listening. A properly set-up system with a dedicated center channel allows multiple listeners to share the same sonic experience.

It's interesting to note that conventional "phantom center" stereo sound reproduction (1 sound source -> 2 microphones -> 2 recording/reproduction channels -> 2 amplification channels -> 2 speakers -> 2 ears) has no counterpart in the natural world; no naturally-occurring sound is created and experienced that way.

P.S. All properly set-up 2-channel stereo systems and all headphones are phantom-center setups, so I would be reluctant to characterize them as "under-used."

[baldrick]

I agree. I think positioning - especially proper height - and adequate dynamic capability are important, but the suggestion that the rears be tonally identical to the fronts is just marketing hype to sell more speakers from the same company. How often do voices come from the rears after all?

I have to disagree!!

I've had two setups running identical speakers in front and back, first was 5 x JBL HT1 THX and the second was a setup With JBL 8340 both in front and as surround. It give much more natural and a "complete" sound useing identical speakers and I really miss it now With my current setup. Now I'm running 8xJBL 8340 as surround and Atmos speakers and 3 x large (identical) JBL Pro cinema in front. Of course the front speakers now are way better but I really miss the effect identical speakers gave me.

[audiomagnate]

Using ANY center speaker is a trade-off. Virtually everything will sound better coming from 2 front speakers compared to one. Phantom center setups are under-used and under-rated.

I was going to say that, but I say it every time multichannel systems are brought up and didn't want to beat a dead horse. I don't have a problem with a center channel speaker that is identical to the mains, but that is rarely done, usually for the reason that it would block the screen, or for economic, practical or esthetic concerns. The other reason I prefer 4.x (where x = or > 2!) is that the purpose of the center channel is to keep vocals coming from the center of the screen for off-center listeners. I'll bet nobody posting here listens off-center themselves; we all love our "sweet spots" after all. As for other viewer/listeners (guests), let's face it, most of them don't give a crap. If they do we can stick them in the center and suffer through a movie or listening session for the duration of their visit. Now if your listening/viewing is habitually done with a partner who is also an audiophile, consider yourself blessed and by all means figure out how to do a center channel correctly.

[audiomagnate]

I have to disagree!!

I've had two setups running identical speakers in front and back, first was 5 x JBL HT1 THX and the second was a setup With JBL 8340 both in front and as surround. It give much more natural and a "complete" sound useing identical speakers and I really miss it now With my current setup. Now I'm running 8xJBL 8340 as surround and Atmos speakers and 3 x large (identical) JBL Pro cinema in front. Of course the front speakers now are way better but I really miss the effect identical speakers gave me.

The we can agree to disagree. I would much rather have slightly mismatched but excellent speakers all around than four (or five) lesser quality but matched speakers. In one of my systems I had (modified) L300's up front and ADS L1530's in the rear with three good subs and and the sound was terrific for movies and music. It was orders of magnitude better than fully matched systems of lower quality I've set up. Now 5 L300's and a sub swarm would be even better, but I'd want to get the rear L300's in up the air, which isn't exactly easy and would look downright weird. L1530's make superb surround speakers because of their lack of coloration and superb dynamic capability and wide response, as well as their form factor; minimum depth and perfect height which is actually a little high for use as mains.

[baldrick]

I would much rather have slightly mismatched but excellent speakers all around than four (or five) lesser quality but matched speakers.

I agree on this part that much better speaker in front is even more important than identical and that's what I chose at home. BUT I don't agree to this part: "that the rears be tonally identical to the fronts is just marketing hype to sell more speakers from the same Company." Because if possible speakers really should be identical.

And now with Dolby Atmos many people use one type of speakers as surrounds and others in the ceiling... it's absolutly not a good solution! You hear it when the sound move from speaker to speaker... With identical speakers you don't and the shound just floats! And this is the problem you get also with noneidentical speakers in front :)

[rdgrimes]

I agree on this part that much better speaker in front is even more important than identical and that's what I chose at home. BUT I don't agree to this part: "that the rears be tonally identical to the fronts is just marketing hype to sell more speakers from the same Company." Because if possible speakers really should be identical.

I'm with you. And I suspect that folks who say otherwise haven't spent much time with a completely matched setup, or just don't listen to much 5.1. The difference can be quite striking. Its the reason that any current processor has a complex PEQ setup system - partly to help deal with dissimilar speakers.

Anyhow, spending more and more time with the Array/PT800 system and not finding any perceivable shortcomings to the PT800 as an Array surround. I'm recommending it to anyone who's interested.