Surround speakers the same size - question

[Brian]

I read a few years back that surround speakers had to be the same
brand and the same size for true surround sound effect.
I see now that some surround sound speakers are of the same brand but
in mixed sizes such as fall standing speakers for the left front and
right front speakers with book self speakers as the rear speakers and
a different shaped center speakers.
I'd be interested in knowing if there are any real advantages in
having speakers of the same size (eg satellite speakers)?
If the fronr pair of speakers were of a different brand (and better
quality) than the rest of the speakers can this cause any problems in
a surround sound speaker set up?

Regards Brian

[Mark D. Zacharias]

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
>I read a few years back that surround speakers had to be the same
> brand and the same size for true surround sound effect.
> I see now that some surround sound speakers are of the same brand but
> in mixed sizes such as fall standing speakers for the left front and
> right front speakers with book self speakers as the rear speakers and
> a different shaped center speakers.
> I'd be interested in knowing if there are any real advantages in
> having speakers of the same size (eg satellite speakers)?
> If the fronr pair of speakers were of a different brand (and better
> quality) than the rest of the speakers can this cause any problems in
> a surround sound speaker set up?
>
> Regards Brian
>

I would say it's a question of how critical you tend to be, and whether you
plan to listen to music using the full complement of surround speakers.
Watching movies etc is perfectly satisfying IMHO using almost anything for
speakers. Critical listening to music is another matter entirely.


Mark Z.

[Robert Morein]

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> I read a few years back that surround speakers had to be the same
> brand and the same size for true surround sound effect.
> I see now that some surround sound speakers are of the same brand but
> in mixed sizes such as fall standing speakers for the left front and
> right front speakers with book self speakers as the rear speakers and
> a different shaped center speakers.
> I'd be interested in knowing if there are any real advantages in
> having speakers of the same size (eg satellite speakers)?
> If the fronr pair of speakers were of a different brand (and better
> quality) than the rest of the speakers can this cause any problems in
> a surround sound speaker set up?
>
> Regards Brian
>
Size has something to do with it, but a more precise way of looking at it is
this:
Every model of speaker has a "sonic signature" that is mostly a matter of
the midrange, to a lesser extent the treble, and even less so, the bass.

A completely identical set of speakers provides the best surround effect,
but unless you have room for a whole bunch of large speakers, there is a
sacrifice of tonal quality, because large speakers tend to sound better than
small ones.

One solution is to maintain a set of small, identical speakers for surround
listening, and a larger stereo pair for music.
Another is to use speakers of different sizes, but from a manufacturer's
particular series. Such series tend to be engineered to have similar sonic
signatures.

One thing NOT to do: Don't mix assorted brands of speakers just because they
have similar external dimensions. There are no advantages to such a setup.

[ren]

Brian wrote:
> I read a few years back that surround speakers had to be the same
> brand and the same size for true surround sound effect.
> I see now that some surround sound speakers are of the same brand but
> in mixed sizes such as fall standing speakers for the left front and
> right front speakers with book self speakers as the rear speakers and
> a different shaped center speakers.
> I'd be interested in knowing if there are any real advantages in
> having speakers of the same size (eg satellite speakers)?
> If the fronr pair of speakers were of a different brand (and better
> quality) than the rest of the speakers can this cause any problems in
> a surround sound speaker set up?
>
> Regards Brian
>
I'm using a small two way up front with a sub. The two way is rated at
70 to 20k +/- 1dB I run them full range and roll the sub up into them.
I'm using a large three way for the rear. They are rated at 42 - 20k
+/- 3dB now yes their sonic signature is different BUT they are a high
quality set of speakers AND in the real world reverberation etc. is not
going to be the same as the original waveform EXACTLY so I don't feel
it's a compromise at all. By definition surround sound is not CRITICAL
listening. CL can only be done with the same set of monitor speakers
used by the mixer in the same size room, all else is automatically a
compromise.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:50:52 -0400, ren > wrote:

>I'm using a small two way up front with a sub. The two way is rated at
>70 to 20k +/- 1dB I run them full range and roll the sub up into them.
>I'm using a large three way for the rear. They are rated at 42 - 20k
>+/- 3dB now yes their sonic signature is different BUT they are a high
>quality set of speakers AND in the real world reverberation etc. is not
>going to be the same as the original waveform EXACTLY so I don't feel
>it's a compromise at all.

It is a compromise to the extent that you are effecting a change in
the timbre of the ambient sound and/or reverberation. If you regard
that change as minimal or unimportant, you have accepted that
compromise.

> By definition surround sound is not CRITICAL
>listening.

Nonsense.

>CL can only be done with the same set of monitor speakers
>used by the mixer in the same size room, all else is automatically a
>compromise.

Same applies to stereo or mono or headphones or, indeed, to any
listening paradigm.

Kal

[Arny Krueger]

Brian wrote:

> I read a few years back that surround speakers had to be the same
> brand and the same size for true surround sound effect.

Actually, what is desired would be uniform timbre for a given sound,
no matter which speaker reproduces it, or from which direction the
sound reaches the listener.

Think of a movie in which an automobile drives around around the
camera. Ideally, you want the car to sound more-or-less the same at
all azimuths, subject only to the natural effect that an identical
sound will sound different from different azimuths due to Head
Response Transfer Functions (HRTFs). IOW, you want the car to sound
like it really was driving around you.

This is actually a very tough acoustical test, so it is unlikely that
it can be passed by luck, or brand loyalty, or buying speakers by the
pound. Just to make things even more intersesting, it includes room
acoustics. It means that your system will fail the test if the back of
the room and the front of the room don't have similar acoustical
transfer functions (IOW, similar acoustics along the path from the
speakers to your ears).


I know of only one reliable means for passing this test. It involves
controlling room acoustics, carefully choossing your speakers and then
putting a separate high-resolution equalizer in each speaker's signal
path. Everything else you do will be less effective.

So, how much of a perfectionist are you, anyway? ;-)

[ren]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:50:52 -0400, ren > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm using a small two way up front with a sub. The two way is rated at
>>70 to 20k +/- 1dB I run them full range and roll the sub up into them.
>>I'm using a large three way for the rear. They are rated at 42 - 20k
>>+/- 3dB now yes their sonic signature is different BUT they are a high
>>quality set of speakers AND in the real world reverberation etc. is not
>>going to be the same as the original waveform EXACTLY so I don't feel
>>it's a compromise at all.
>
>
> It is a compromise to the extent that you are effecting a change in
> the timbre of the ambient sound and/or reverberation. If you regard
> that change as minimal or unimportant, you have accepted that
> compromise.
>
I'll agree with you in theory and then say it's meaningless and an
arguement you are proposing just to argue. They don't record reverb in
actual halls and you aren't in the control room using the same setup
they are. To argue that since my rear are out 2 dB here or there when
hanging a rug on the wall or having exposed windows or carpet vs. a
hardwood floor EVEN IF you have the exact same room as the recording
venue and furniture etc. LOOK yes theoretically but vanishly small
practically.

GIVE ME A BREAK and save your expertise for something worth fighting over.

>
>>By definition surround sound is not CRITICAL
>>listening.
>
>
> Nonsense.
>

Whatever...You got about a million people could never agree on a simple
stereo setup as being 'critical' listening or not now you are going to
argue that surround sound can be 'critical'. Look I'm well within the
ball park and very critical IMHO but I am sure there are thousands of
ways to get there with more or less money. At least I'm not using a
Bose setup and claiming anything here. Surround critical GIVE ME A
BREAK...they mix most of that stuff like crap for effect what's critical
about that...give me an SACD on top of the line equipment...that's
critical. But obviously our definitions are different.

>
>>CL can only be done with the same set of monitor speakers
>>used by the mixer in the same size room, all else is automatically a
>>compromise.
>
>
> Same applies to stereo or mono or headphones or, indeed, to any
> listening paradigm.
>
Interesting is this agreement? But that doesn't contradict your early
critical arguement? Yes I am compromising but not by much I don't think.

> Kal
>

[Barry Mann]

In >, on 04/06/05
at 08:17 PM, Brian > said:


>I read a few years back that surround speakers had to be the same
>brand and the same size for true surround sound effect. I see now that
>some surround sound speakers are of the same brand but in mixed sizes
>such as fall standing speakers for the left front and right front
>speakers with book self speakers as the rear speakers and a different
>shaped center speakers.
>I'd be interested in knowing if there are any real advantages in
>having speakers of the same size (eg satellite speakers)? If the fronr
>pair of speakers were of a different brand (and better quality) than
>the rest of the speakers can this cause any problems in a surround
>sound speaker set up?

Ideally, all the speakers should sound the same. Another poster
expressed it as "voice" (I'll call it "timbre" to avoid confusion). If
your speakers don't all have the same timbre, then a speaking actor's
voice will change as he or she moves from speaker to speaker.

Obviously, it's a complex problem because the timbre of your room may
not consistent or the physical arrangement of your room may not make
identical speakers a practical proposition. Some of us are willing to
rearrange, possibly restructure the room for surround sound, some of us
are not.

As a practical matter, relatively little of the current music or films
are using all of the speakers as fully as they could. Artists and
producers are still learning the new rules. I suspect that we'll have
to wait for a new generation of music, films, and listeners to develop
before we will even know what should be done. In the early days of
stereo we (briefly) enjoyed "ping pong" records where half of the
orchestra would be separated by a curtain or seated in another room
during the recording. Bits and pieces of sound would fly between the
speakers. This was probably a necessary step in our development, but we
don't often do that any more. At the moment, while there is some very
nice surround work out there (mostly film -- relatively little music),
we are at the ping pong stage in our surround development or we are
rehashing older, pre-surround stuff.

That said, it can be a lot of fun.

Unless you have enough money and willpower to structure your room for
"perfect" surround listening, concentrate on similar timbre across the
left, center, and right speakers. For most untrained listeners, voices
are where timbre clashes will be noticed. Since voices are usually
concentrated in the front, timbre mismatches in the rear are less
important.

In the future, and I don't know exactly when surround sound will
mature, we will want to pay more attention to timbre matching, but that
will probably come with your next system.

I strongly suggest that you have your speakers symmetrically placed
with respect to you and the video source.

-----------------------------------------------------------
spam:
wordgame:123(abc):<14 9 20 5 2 9 18 4 at 22 15 9 3 5 14 5 20 dot 3 15
13> (Barry Mann)
[sorry about the puzzle, spammers are ruining my mailbox]
-----------------------------------------------------------

[[email protected]]

Mark D. Zacharias wrote:
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I read a few years back that surround speakers had to be the same
> > brand and the same size for true surround sound effect.

If you want the best possible and most consistent sound, then I agree
with the above. But you may find you can be quite happy with speakers
that don't meet the above ideal.

> > I see now that some surround sound speakers are of the same brand
but
> > in mixed sizes such as fall standing speakers for the left front
and
> > right front speakers with book self speakers as the rear speakers
and
> > a different shaped center speakers.

That can work fine. It also saves having rear speakers that are big and
bulky.

> > I'd be interested in knowing if there are any real advantages in
> > having speakers of the same size (eg satellite speakers)?

The sound will be more consistent from front to rear. But the front
speakers in a surround-sound system are usually playing at a much
higher volume than the rear speakers, so different rear speakers often
aren't noticeable.

> > If the fronr pair of speakers were of a different brand (and better
> > quality) than the rest of the speakers can this cause any problems
in
> > a surround sound speaker set up?

In practice with surround-sound TV and movies, it's not usually a
problem, because the rear channels are mostly used to provide subtle
ambience effects at a much lower volume than the front channels.

If possible, I'd go with either identical speakers all around, or else
smaller rear speakers from the same speaker brand and product line as
the front speakers. But in practice, having rear speakers that are from
a different brand than the front speakers will often sound fine.

However, if you have surround-sound music, rear speakers very different
from the front speakers, and the recording includes a lot of
rear-channel sound at the same volume as the front channels, you may be
able to notice that the rear speakers sound different. But music
recordings like that are rare.

To complicate things a little further, many fine speaker makers also
make bipole or dipole rear speakers that are designed to provide a
diffuse sound. These speakers would work poorly as front speakers, yet
these bipole or dipole rear speakers can complement and sound great
with the different front speakers.

> > Regards Brian
> >
>
> I would say it's a question of how critical you tend to be, and
whether you
> plan to listen to music using the full complement of surround
speakers.
> Watching movies etc is perfectly satisfying IMHO using almost
anything for
> speakers. Critical listening to music is another matter entirely.

Agree. In my case, I have some surround-sound speakers at home that
sound fine when I'm watching TV, VHS tapes, or DVD shows and movies,
but the same speakers sound mediocre when I use them for music only.

> Mark Z.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:38:56 -0400, ren > wrote:

>I'll agree with you in theory and then say it's meaningless and an
>arguement you are proposing just to argue. They don't record reverb in
>actual halls and you aren't in the control room using the same setup
>they are. To argue that since my rear are out 2 dB here or there when
>hanging a rug on the wall or having exposed windows or carpet vs. a
>hardwood floor EVEN IF you have the exact same room as the recording
>venue and furniture etc. LOOK yes theoretically but vanishly small
>practically.
>
>GIVE ME A BREAK and save your expertise for something worth fighting over.

First, thje recordings I listen to with real interest are recorded
with the reverb from the actual hall. For those, there is a
difference and that is based on my experience.

Second, what turns out to be practical depends on the listener's
needs. I would guess that your rear speakers are not so different
from the fronts. 'Matched speakers' do not have to be the same size
or the same brand but do have to be similar in their tonal qualities.
Try the Chesky Setup Disc's phase tests; they are doomed if the
speakers differ too much, regardless of phase and bass extension.

>Whatever...You got about a million people could never agree on a simple
>stereo setup as being 'critical' listening or not now you are going to
>argue that surround sound can be 'critical'. Look I'm well within the
>ball park and very critical IMHO but I am sure there are thousands of
>ways to get there with more or less money.

No argument here.

> At least I'm not using a
>Bose setup and claiming anything here. Surround critical GIVE ME A
>BREAK...they mix most of that stuff like crap for effect what's critical
>about that...give me an SACD on top of the line equipment...that's
>critical. But obviously our definitions are different.

Wait a minute. Are you distinguishing between "surround" and SACD? In
the number of channels or???? My definition of critical listening
requires a genuine acoustic event recorded relatively accurately on a
non-compressed medium. Artificial 'surround' processing is out but
the number of channels is not at issue.

>> Same applies to stereo or mono or headphones or, indeed, to any
>> listening paradigm.
>>
>Interesting is this agreement? But that doesn't contradict your early
>critical arguement? Yes I am compromising but not by much I don't think.

We are not disagreeing on everything, merely on some terms which may
or may not be clearly defined. Compromise is almost always with us
but we get to push him around a bit. My points are intended to
indicate where I would push.

Kal

[ren]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:38:56 -0400, ren > wrote:
>
>
>>I'll agree with you in theory and then say it's meaningless and an
>>arguement you are proposing just to argue. They don't record reverb in
>>actual halls and you aren't in the control room using the same setup
>>they are. To argue that since my rear are out 2 dB here or there when
>>hanging a rug on the wall or having exposed windows or carpet vs. a
>>hardwood floor EVEN IF you have the exact same room as the recording
>>venue and furniture etc. LOOK yes theoretically but vanishly small
>>practically.
>>
>>GIVE ME A BREAK and save your expertise for something worth fighting over.
>
>
> First, thje recordings I listen to with real interest are recorded
> with the reverb from the actual hall. For those, there is a
> difference and that is based on my experience.
>
> Second, what turns out to be practical depends on the listener's
> needs. I would guess that your rear speakers are not so different
> from the fronts. 'Matched speakers' do not have to be the same size
> or the same brand but do have to be similar in their tonal qualities.
> Try the Chesky Setup Disc's phase tests; they are doomed if the
> speakers differ too much, regardless of phase and bass extension.
>
>
>>Whatever...You got about a million people could never agree on a simple
>>stereo setup as being 'critical' listening or not now you are going to
>>argue that surround sound can be 'critical'. Look I'm well within the
>>ball park and very critical IMHO but I am sure there are thousands of
>>ways to get there with more or less money.
>
>
> No argument here.
>
>
>>At least I'm not using a
>>Bose setup and claiming anything here. Surround critical GIVE ME A
>>BREAK...they mix most of that stuff like crap for effect what's critical
>>about that...give me an SACD on top of the line equipment...that's
>>critical. But obviously our definitions are different.
>
>
> Wait a minute. Are you distinguishing between "surround" and SACD? In
> the number of channels or???? My definition of critical listening
> requires a genuine acoustic event recorded relatively accurately on a
> non-compressed medium. Artificial 'surround' processing is out but
> the number of channels is not at issue.
>
>
>>>Same applies to stereo or mono or headphones or, indeed, to any
>>>listening paradigm.
>>>
>>
>>Interesting is this agreement? But that doesn't contradict your early
>>critical arguement? Yes I am compromising but not by much I don't think.
>
>
> We are not disagreeing on everything, merely on some terms which may
> or may not be clearly defined. Compromise is almost always with us
> but we get to push him around a bit. My points are intended to
> indicate where I would push.
>
> Kal
>
Very thoughtful, detailed, accurate response. I thank you and will say
that you are entirely correct. My sticking points were clearly debunked
by this latest post, I will have to be sure to much more succinct from
now on, you guys don't let anyone get away with anything. I have MFSL
Sound Check and it has in phase out of phase tracks. What kind of test
should be run. I also have a RS digital SPL meter if that helps. Let
me know what to do, I'll post the results.

BTW - "My definition of critical listening
> requires a genuine acoustic event recorded relatively accurately on a
> non-compressed medium. Artificial 'surround' processing is out but
> the number of channels is not at issue" I meant two channel stereo
or dolby 5.1 movies - there are (quadraphonic) recordings of actual
theaters without added processing? AND what is a non compressed medium?

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:58:51 -0400, ren > wrote:

>Very thoughtful, detailed, accurate response. I thank you and will say
>that you are entirely correct. My sticking points were clearly debunked
>by this latest post, I will have to be sure to much more succinct from
>now on, you guys don't let anyone get away with anything. I have MFSL
>Sound Check and it has in phase out of phase tracks. What kind of test
>should be run. I also have a RS digital SPL meter if that helps. Let
>me know what to do, I'll post the results.

I do not know that disc but the specific tests on the Chesky disc I
was referring to are those which provide inphase/outofphase noise
bursts for the FR/SR or FL/SL channels. A good match between front
and rear speakers makes the phase distinction clear and decisive. A
poor match (and I do have some that are) makes the test difficult.

> I meant two channel stereo
>or dolby 5.1 movies - there are (quadraphonic) recordings of actual
>theaters without added processing? AND what is a non compressed medium?

Non-compressed includes CDs, SACDs and DVD-As (unless the producer
chose to screw things up). It does not include any Dolby process or
any DTS process generally in use.

Kal

[harrogate2]

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 15:58:51 -0400, ren > wrote:
>
> >Very thoughtful, detailed, accurate response. I thank you and will
say
> >that you are entirely correct. My sticking points were clearly
debunked
> >by this latest post, I will have to be sure to much more succinct
from
> >now on, you guys don't let anyone get away with anything. I have
MFSL
> >Sound Check and it has in phase out of phase tracks. What kind of
test
> >should be run. I also have a RS digital SPL meter if that helps.
Let
> >me know what to do, I'll post the results.
>
> I do not know that disc but the specific tests on the Chesky disc I
> was referring to are those which provide inphase/outofphase noise
> bursts for the FR/SR or FL/SL channels. A good match between front
> and rear speakers makes the phase distinction clear and decisive. A
> poor match (and I do have some that are) makes the test difficult.
>
> > I meant two channel stereo
> >or dolby 5.1 movies - there are (quadraphonic) recordings of actual
> >theaters without added processing? AND what is a non compressed
medium?
>
> Non-compressed includes CDs, SACDs and DVD-As (unless the producer
> chose to screw things up). It does not include any Dolby process or
> any DTS process generally in use.
>
> Kal
>

The in-phase/out-of-phase test is quite easy to perform, matched
speakers or not.

Put the speakers a couple of feet apart and facing each other. Start
the disc and put your head between the speakers - they do not need to
be loud. If the speakers are correctly wired, the in-phase test should
sound as if the voice/music is in the middle of your head, the
out-of-phase test will make the voice/music sound echoy and diffuse
and difficult to place in space. If the tests sound opposite to this
then reverse the wiring to ONE speaker only and repeat the test.

You will also notice the same effect with music if you listen
carefully. Music selection can be very effective as well - something
with good bass will have that bass lacking if the speakers are out of
phase, but make sure you don't play it too loud as that can defeat the
object of the exercise!


--
Woody

harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 06:18:57 GMT, "harrogate2"
> wrote:

>The in-phase/out-of-phase test is quite easy to perform, matched
>speakers or not.
>
>Put the speakers a couple of feet apart and facing each other.

Aha! That's fine but the farther apart they are, the more difficult
it is to make the determination if the speakers have substantially
different frequency responses. Also, the "lack of bass" test is also
less effective if the speakers have little or no bass or if one is a
full-range (with extended bass) and the other is a small satellite
speaker.

So, I agree with you fully but my point was that one can use the
Chesky phase test to asses how well matched the front and rear
speakers are (on each side), including the room effects on each.

Kal