paradigm cc-170 vs. cc-270

[PJ]

I am currently looking into a center channel speaker to finish my
system. Currently i have a marantz sr 4200 receiver paradigm titans
for the fronts and rears and a paradigm pdr 10 subwoofer. It sounds
like the cc-170 will fit better with my current setup, however i am
debating upgrading the fronts to the much larger paradigm Phantom
floor speakers in the future. Will the cc-170 still be big enough for
and match well with the phantoms? Currently i can get the cc-170 for
$160 and the cc-270 for $224.

[chris]

IMHO the 170 is a very good centre lots of clarity for the money but you get
what you pay for with a paradigm so splash out and get the 270 it soo much
better + it will match the bigger mains better and if you cost the
difference over the life time of the system its got to be worth a beer a wk
extra. don't forget the olde rule of thumb for 2 channel hifi 50% on
speakers, 30% on transcription the remaining 20% on everything else. it
wont be the best in any one thing, but it should sound damm fine for the
budget. I know it can get a bit silly for 5 or 6 channel HC.

Enjoy Chris
Once you are open to extreme possibilities, one is also aware of all of life
opportunities

"PJ" > wrote in message
...
> I am currently looking into a center channel speaker to finish my
> system. Currently i have a marantz sr 4200 receiver paradigm titans
> for the fronts and rears and a paradigm pdr 10 subwoofer. It sounds
> like the cc-170 will fit better with my current setup, however i am
> debating upgrading the fronts to the much larger paradigm Phantom
> floor speakers in the future. Will the cc-170 still be big enough for
> and match well with the phantoms? Currently i can get the cc-170 for
> $160 and the cc-270 for $224.

[GRL]

Simple solution. Put another Titan as your center channel. That is the only
way to really "voice" the speakers alike. The very wide baffle board of any
dedicated center-channel speaker screws up the imaging. It'll also save you
a lot of money.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"PJ" > wrote in message
...
> I am currently looking into a center channel speaker to finish my
> system. Currently i have a marantz sr 4200 receiver paradigm titans
> for the fronts and rears and a paradigm pdr 10 subwoofer. It sounds
> like the cc-170 will fit better with my current setup, however i am
> debating upgrading the fronts to the much larger paradigm Phantom
> floor speakers in the future. Will the cc-170 still be big enough for
> and match well with the phantoms? Currently i can get the cc-170 for
> $160 and the cc-270 for $224.

[Nousaine]

"GRL" wrote:

>Simple solution. Put another Titan as your center channel. That is the only
>way to really "voice" the speakers alike. The very wide baffle board of any
>dedicated center-channel speaker screws up the imaging. It'll also save you
>a lot of money.
>
>--
>
>- GRL

I'd agree. But the right reason is not the wide baffle but the awful horizontal
radiation pattern of a horizontally arrayed loudspeaker.

When drivers are located near each other and operating in different frequency
ranges there will be interference patterns generated near the crossover
frequency. When the drivers are vertically arrayed these patterns show in the
vertical directivity. When the drivers are horizontally arrayed they are then
delivered directly into the off-axis listening area.

For the same reason laying a Titan on its side as a center doesn't work well
either.

[GRL]

Never could understand why speaker manufacturers like to make such wide
speakers for center channels when they already make the satellite speakers
that work just fine in that role. Only thing I can think of is the center
channels typically sell for much more than satellites sell for and I suspect
the mark-up is greater. I use an array of five Paradigm Atoms in our
upstairs home theater system and it works great.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Nousaine" > wrote in message
news:b3zTa.127792$Ph3.16646@sccrnsc04...
> "GRL" wrote:
>
> >Simple solution. Put another Titan as your center channel. That is the
only
> >way to really "voice" the speakers alike. The very wide baffle board of
any
> >dedicated center-channel speaker screws up the imaging. It'll also save
you
> >a lot of money.
> >
> >--
> >
> >- GRL
>
> I'd agree. But the right reason is not the wide baffle but the awful
horizontal
> radiation pattern of a horizontally arrayed loudspeaker.
>
> When drivers are located near each other and operating in different
frequency
> ranges there will be interference patterns generated near the crossover
> frequency. When the drivers are vertically arrayed these patterns show in
the
> vertical directivity. When the drivers are horizontally arrayed they are
then
> delivered directly into the off-axis listening area.
>
> For the same reason laying a Titan on its side as a center doesn't work
well
> either.
>

[Nousaine]

"GRL" wrote:

Never could understand why speaker manufacturers like to make such wide
>speakers for center channels when they already make the satellite speakers
>that work just fine in that role. Only thing I can think of is the center
>channels typically sell for much more than satellites sell for and I suspect
>the mark-up is greater. I use an array of five Paradigm Atoms in our
>upstairs home theater system and it works great.
>
>--
>
>- GRL

It's all a style and 'fit atop the tv' deal. Horizontally arrayed speakers are
easier to sell.

[Nousaine]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:11:47 GMT, "GRL" >
>wrote:
>
>>Style, I can buy. But fit, I don't think so. Small popular speakers like
>>Atoms, Super Zeros, Alphas and so on fit every bit as well atop a TV as the
>>same manufacturers' center channels do. Better, I think.
>
>Except that the radiation and sound of those speakers is greatly
>affected by the presence of the TV, the proximity of which was not
>part of their design spec. Good, dedicated center-channel speakers
>incorporate corrections for that relationship.
>
>Kal

While this 'should' be part of the design process it seems that relatively few
dedicated centers effectively compensate for this in a way that makes them work
better than 6.5-inch 2 ways. OR even attempt to address the, sometimes severe,
horizontal lobing, often beginning at as little as 10 degrees off axis, that
comes with horizontally arrayed driver sets.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:54:50 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>While this 'should' be part of the design process it seems that relatively few
>dedicated centers effectively compensate for this in a way that makes them work
>better than 6.5-inch 2 ways. OR even attempt to address the, sometimes severe,
>horizontal lobing, often beginning at as little as 10 degrees off axis, that
>comes with horizontally arrayed driver sets.

True. But, just because so few center speakers do it right does not
mean that one can generalize and say that dedicated centers are
inferior to a regular speaker in this application.

Kal

[Nousaine]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:54:50 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>While this 'should' be part of the design process it seems that relatively
>few
>>dedicated centers effectively compensate for this in a way that makes them
>work
>>better than 6.5-inch 2 ways. OR even attempt to address the, sometimes
>severe,
>>horizontal lobing, often beginning at as little as 10 degrees off axis, that
>>comes with horizontally arrayed driver sets.
>
>True. But, just because so few center speakers do it right does not
>mean that one can generalize and say that dedicated centers are
>inferior to a regular speaker in this application.
>
>Kal

Sure; but in general, a decent quality vertically arrayed 6.5-inch 2 way
speaker is superior to roughly 95% of the horizontally arrayed speakers I've
tested.

And, in general, the more expensive the wide center the worse it performs. The
only ones that push the envelope have a cone-mid with a vertically arrayed
tweeter or special mounted tweeter.

The Infinity is excellent. The B&W 'bumped' center is pretty good. However,
even the co-axials often are compromised. The KEF and Tannoy are reasonable but
have the upper frequency bumps from the reflections off the cone.The
Vandersteen is horrible.

I'm wondering why we haven't seen a variation of the old DCM coaxial system
where the tweeter was suspended on a mesh covering the woofer face.

As a general rule; a moderately priced 6.5-inch 2 way vertically arrayed center
channel is most often the single best alternative for a large share of users.

That's what I use. And its because my center channel is the best system I 've
ever encountered from 80 Hz and upward anytime and anywhere.

Just because its located behind a large microperf screen doesn't make it any
less useful. And that doesn't make a more expensive but worse performing
horizontally arrayed system any better :)

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 25 Jul 2003 01:16:22 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>And, in general, the more expensive the wide center the worse it performs. The
>only ones that push the envelope have a cone-mid with a vertically arrayed
>tweeter or special mounted tweeter.

Yup.

>Just because its located behind a large microperf screen doesn't make it any
>less useful. And that doesn't make a more expensive but worse performing
>horizontally arrayed system any better :)

The real impediment is not a large microperf screen but the large hulk
of a CRT TV.

Kal

[Steven Sullivan]

Nousaine > wrote:
> As a general rule; a moderately priced 6.5-inch 2 way vertically arrayed center
> channel is most often the single best alternative for a large share of users.

> That's what I use. And its because my center channel is the best system I 've
> ever encountered from 80 Hz and upward anytime and anywhere.

> Just because its located behind a large microperf screen doesn't make it any
> less useful. And that doesn't make a more expensive but worse performing
> horizontally arrayed system any better :)

I have NHT superones all around, and I have the center speaker
on top of my RPTV, flush with the edge, mounted vertically but
with tweeter end down,
tilted slightly forward to 'aim' at the sweet spot.

I have no idea if this actually improves the sound, but it seemed to make
sense at the time. ;> My idea was that the center output, being emitted
a foot or so higher up than mains, is closer to being aligned to the
mains tweeters, if I put the center speaker upside down and tilt it forward.
Front to back distance diffeerence is compensated for by center delay
adjustment.

--
-S.

[Nousaine]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

>
>Kalman Rubinson > wrote:
>> On 25 Jul 2003 01:16:22 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>>>And, in general, the more expensive the wide center the worse it performs.
>The
>>>only ones that push the envelope have a cone-mid with a vertically arrayed
>>>tweeter or special mounted tweeter.
>
>> Yup.
>
>>>Just because its located behind a large microperf screen doesn't make it
>any
>>>less useful. And that doesn't make a more expensive but worse performing
>>>horizontally arrayed system any better :)
>
>> The real impediment is not a large microperf screen but the large hulk
>> of a CRT TV.
>
>I bet I'm far from alone in being ready to
>pounce on a wall-mounted plasma, just as soon as they come down
>a bit more in price.
>
>--
>-S.

I'm all set to pounce on a plasma for the bedroom system but I'll use it
table-top.

[Nousaine]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

>Nousaine > wrote:
>> As a general rule; a moderately priced 6.5-inch 2 way vertically arrayed
>center
>> channel is most often the single best alternative for a large share of
>users.
>
>> That's what I use. And its because my center channel is the best system I
>'ve
>> ever encountered from 80 Hz and upward anytime and anywhere.
>
>> Just because its located behind a large microperf screen doesn't make it
>any
>> less useful. And that doesn't make a more expensive but worse performing
>> horizontally arrayed system any better :)
>
>I have NHT superones all around, and I have the center speaker
>on top of my RPTV, flush with the edge, mounted vertically but
>with tweeter end down,
>tilted slightly forward to 'aim' at the sweet spot.
>
>I have no idea if this actually improves the sound, but it seemed to make
>sense at the time. ;> My idea was that the center output, being emitted
>a foot or so higher up than mains, is closer to being aligned to the
>mains tweeters, if I put the center speaker upside down and tilt it forward.
>Front to back distance diffeerence is compensated for by center delay
>adjustment.
>
>--
>-S.

This is a very rational approach. The 'tilt' also makes sure that vertical
directivity lobing is directed away from the main listening area.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:41:43 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

>Steven Sullivan wrote:

>>I bet I'm far from alone in being ready to
>>pounce on a wall-mounted plasma, just as soon as they come down
>>a bit more in price.
>
>I'm all set to pounce on a plasma for the bedroom system but I'll use it
>table-top.

I am going front projection so that the only thing to possibly
compromise the center speaker will be the screen which will be behind
it!

Kal