Yeah... not that I can claim to have first-hand experience with this (and I'm too lazy to make the experiment) but my half-knowledge tells me this is a problem
I'd give a long winded explanation to what exactly comb filtering is, how it affects sounds due to time delay, yada yada, but in short it really only matters in PA use.
In home audio, especially if the tweeters have proper waveguides, multiple of the same tweeters produce absolutely no comb filtering as long as the distance between tweeters doesn't exceed the threshold specs of the driver itself.
So in a speaker like this, makes no audible or measured deficiencies. I've taken professional level measures of my system and didn't come across any tall tell signs of it being apparent.
> In home audio, especially if the tweeters have proper waveguides, multiple of the same tweeters produce absolutely no comb filtering as long as the distance between tweeters doesn't exceed the threshold specs of the driver itself.
I see no waveguides on those speakers, they look like a dome tweeter with a mesh cover.
Also, I don't believe comb filtering has much at all to do with the specs of the driver itself. It has to do with the crossover point. The two drivers need to be spaced closer than one wavelength (I believe its more like 1/2 wavelength) of the frequency range being output. That speaker has a crossover point of 2700hz, and that wavelength is about 5 inches. Those tweeters are way further than 5 inches apart. And that's just the lower frequency, anything above that will also result in comb filtering.
You have two tweeters, putting out frequencies from two distinct sources where the waves will combine/cancel each other. Textbook situation to witness comb filtering. Glad it sounds good to you, because seems an awfully expensive speakers to have such an odd design choice.
Psychoacoustics come into play big time. Id post pictures of my analytic measurements but I guess I can't comment with pictures. Essentially yes, with measurements you do in fact witness symptoms of comb filtering. But our brains are super computers when it comes to psychoacoustics.
Psychoacoustics matters a lot. All speakers in a room with flat surfaces will have an element of comb filtering, they may not be audible to ourĀ deafĀ human ears because of theĀ timeĀ involved in the cycle relative to how our brain interprets it, and it matters what the frequency range is, as we are more sensitive to some rangers than others per neuroscience. So psychoacoutics plays a role of course, because we do not hear the way a microphone does; the brain is a prediction engine with poor reflex, so we hear what we hear not because its reality (objective) but rather what our brain interprets after the fact, or predicted and biased towards it (subjective).
Lots of metrics don't matter in the audible realm, making them more academic, and are basically too minute to physically hear the difference forĀ mostĀ people's ears. Does that mean they're not important? No. There's just a distinct difference between scales. Our hearing's scale is course and low resolution. A microphone's scale is fine and high resolution over the same period of time. This said, today's culture has access to high resolution data compared to zero data or low resolution limited data of our audio-past. So despite this, I think metrics are still incredibly important to know about from an end-user experience, to understand the what and why of your hearing's information that your brain will bias.
It's not like people talking in a room sounds weird or artificial as we hear speech in a room. Our brain handles the subtle differences in SPL to result in similar experience for the most part. A more interesting question would be... where on average does our brain's interpretation of audio (psycchoacoutics) become noticeable by an average listener (ie, over 3db or more? Less?). Comb filtering or wave front cancellation (we're more interested in the loss, not the standing wave here) when heard by our ear would be loudness (audible) versus not (inaudible, insignificant in terms of end user experience).
Also the tweeters have a metal mesh over the domes with a transparent plastic waveguide thats designed in such a way to disperse frequency response in tangent with the other favorably .
> Also the tweeters have a metal mesh over the domes with a transparent plastic waveguide thats designed in such a way to disperse frequency response in tangent with the other favorably .
But that's not how that works. A waveguide can't make two points in space closer together. Waveguide or not, you still have two distinct points ~20 inches apart sending high frequencies to your listening position. Two tweeters present a much higher opportunity for comb filtering than a textured wall or even a window does 15ft away.
Someone on here recently sent me a very good YouTube video explaining why the majority of centre speakers are actually badly designed and give a very poor frequency response off axis.
You're probably thinking of MTM designs.
In a perfect world you want your center speaker to have the exact same driver compliment as your main front channels speakers, which this center does.
I am thinking of MTM designs, but I can't see how this one wouldn't suffer from many of the same problems.
FWIW my centre has exactly the same drivers and MTM configuration as my fronts, but rotated by 90Ā°, and it comb filters like crazy off axis.
[Can you explain how this center channel is going to perform any differently to the speakers in this comb filtering measurment demo?](https://youtu.be/0GXEine4jpg?t=270)
My brother has the Axiom version of this speaker in his custom theater and I donāt hear any issues from the abnormal design of it. Even when sitting off axis I hear dialogue clearly without a major change in the tonality.
Get super far off axis and you lose the mid range and tweeter like you would any other speaker but within a reasonable listening window these things sound fine. in fact, they measure quite flat and because of all of the extra speakers, they can get really loud without any distortion. I was especially impressed with deep male voices like on the Witcher. They had an impact that I had not felt on any other speaker I had experienced. It sounded very powerful.
I do pay a lot of attention to measurements and I have experienced a lot of the things that folks like Erin describes with off axis issues. But I do believe some of the comb filtering issues may be a bit overblown. We hear with two ears and not a single point microphone. We listen in a room that has a lot of reflections. Sounds bounce around our ears and our ear canals where as a microphone is sitting out in free space. I donāt feel like we hear the same as a computer does.
My experience is that these sound really great from any seat in his theater. so even though everyone says they should be a mess my experience was quite the opposite. Those that havenāt experienced it probably shouldnāt be speaking from such authority.
Sometimes these type of designs have two tweeters that operate at different frequency ranges, so they're not acoustically overlapping, not sure what's going on here. They also have a standard 3-way design too (the [mini](https://bryston.com/passive/a-centers/) version).
You think that's overkill?
The front channels are powered by an anthem statement P2 pumping 500 watts RMS.
The center is being bi amped by 2 channels of an anthem MCA 50, 265 watts going to the woofers and 265 watts going to the mids/tweeters.
But but butā¦. You donāt need anything more than an A/V receiver putting out 110 watts per channel. Thatās what I get told everytime I mention my Emotiva amps
Bryston had Axiom make their speakers, Axiom love to break the rules with bizarre tweeter layouts and severe comb filtering issues that they hand waved away with a 'judge with your ears not your measurements' argument like Tekton.
Axiom are a weird company.
The on axis response of this center is excellent, but it's all over the place off axis.
Spoken like a true keyboard warrior!
From all the measurements in my room I have not recorded or heard any interference from comb filtering on these speakers, simply put comb filtering really doesn't come into play until commercial applications in the PA world.
I guarantee if you heard these or any other "audiophile speaker" with a dual tweeter array you wouldn't hear comb filtering, even if you knew how to listen for it.
I have run a bookshelf as a centre for years. The one i use now is hung from the ceiling and to enable a larger screen i remounted it sideways.
I could hear it right away. I tried a handful of movies but couldnāt tolerate it so i placed it upright again.
Looking at the measurment data from Bryston who uses a Klippel for measurements, this center has a nice smooth freq response. It is 42Hz to 22kHz +/- 3db
The listening window data that they provide is the results of averaging of horizontal responses at +/- 10, 20, and 30 degrees on the horizontal axis, and +/- 10 degrees on the vertical axis.
I am sure if there was comb filtering you would see it in there
First: congratulations OP on a system that clearly has you thrilled. Thatās a very nice finish on your speakers. And the system looks powerful as hell.
On the other hand, this is certainly an instance that shows the difference in taste and approach among us Home Theatre fans .
Iāve seen quite a number of Home Theatre enthusiast, love, huge speakers, and tons of drivers. And they love to show those drivers off: so in some systems you get the screen surrounded by huge speakers, massive subwoofer drivers a gazillion midranges, and thatās what the person likes: they like seeing every driver they paid for (case DIYād).
Iām the opposite . I much prefer subtlety in the look of a home theatre system, where the screen is a centre of attention and the speakers are if not hidden by a screen, at least made more discrete. so Frances, I would find all those drivers staring at me around the TV to be wildly distracting. I did the very least put the speaker grills on.
Also: Iāve always favoured that the scale of the sound match the size of the screen . Especially in the early days of Home Theatre when Home Theatre was being pushed in the AV stores I always found the very odd. There would be say a 42 inch up to 60 inch flatscreen display, with a surround system of full range speakers. They put on the inevitable demo scenes of the battle in gladiator.
And then Iād feel this total mismatch between the relatively small figures running around on screen, and the massive more life-size sound. Iām hearing around me. My brain just had trouble connecting the two.
Thatās why when I bought my first plasma for my initial Home Theatre set up in our family room, I bought speakers that were modest and size and the scale of the sound perfectly matched the scale of the picture .
When I finally moved to a projection based system, then I upped the size of my speakers to carefully match the scale of the image I was watching .
Look at the images from the OP I can pretty much guarantee my brain would experience the mismatch. Iām talking about between the dominating scale of the sound versus the modest size of the picture.
But we are all happy with different things so this of course is just an opinion
I took the grilles off for the picture lol. They stay on 95% of the time.
It's my livingroom, doesn't make sense to put a projector screen in it. I don't have a dedicated media theater
My father has that exact same paradigm center, believe it or not the bryston in overall dimensions is bigger, and honestly sounds a lot better. Paradigm sounded hollow in comparison; still a great center though.
So you're getting hyper critical and defensive even though you haven't heard my center yet I have actually compared both side by side? Egotistical much.
So many things you also said are flat out false. The cc390 weighs 61 pounds, the AC1 weighs 57 pounds. The drivers are more or less the same size. Yes the cc390 has 4 6.5 inch bass drivers whereas the bryston has 2 6.5 inch drivers, and actually the midrange woofers on the bryston are larger (5.25 inch) compared to the paradigms 4.5 inch. Considering the paradigm only weighs 4 pounds more yet has two more bass drivers should speak to the actual build quality and weight of the bryston.
Both are a three way design, just implemented differently. I never said the paradigm sounds hollow, I said in comparison it does. Fact of the matter the paradigm is rated down to 80hz +-2db, with a low frequency extension din of 44hz. The bryston is rated down to 25hz with a din of 20hz, it's a much weightier full range sound in comparison.
I didn't make this a dick measuring contest, you did, by victimizing yourself and getting your ego hit. Both are fine center channels but all your arguments are just plain dumb.
(This is a reply to the comment you deleted btw.)
Big Center Cpeaker
fuck I meant to say big center channel lmao
Too early to be that stoned! š¤£
Nonsense....
We are in a home theater sub so I was being polite š¤£ never too early.
#Never!
Do you believe you are all in the same time zone or something :p?
BBC Big Brown Channel
I was thinking he should've gotten it in piano black for a BBC: big black center
Whatever you do, keep away from the big brown channel - sound advice. Pun intended.
What in the comb-filtering-tweeters am I looking at?!
Yeah... not that I can claim to have first-hand experience with this (and I'm too lazy to make the experiment) but my half-knowledge tells me this is a problem
I'd give a long winded explanation to what exactly comb filtering is, how it affects sounds due to time delay, yada yada, but in short it really only matters in PA use. In home audio, especially if the tweeters have proper waveguides, multiple of the same tweeters produce absolutely no comb filtering as long as the distance between tweeters doesn't exceed the threshold specs of the driver itself. So in a speaker like this, makes no audible or measured deficiencies. I've taken professional level measures of my system and didn't come across any tall tell signs of it being apparent.
> In home audio, especially if the tweeters have proper waveguides, multiple of the same tweeters produce absolutely no comb filtering as long as the distance between tweeters doesn't exceed the threshold specs of the driver itself. I see no waveguides on those speakers, they look like a dome tweeter with a mesh cover. Also, I don't believe comb filtering has much at all to do with the specs of the driver itself. It has to do with the crossover point. The two drivers need to be spaced closer than one wavelength (I believe its more like 1/2 wavelength) of the frequency range being output. That speaker has a crossover point of 2700hz, and that wavelength is about 5 inches. Those tweeters are way further than 5 inches apart. And that's just the lower frequency, anything above that will also result in comb filtering. You have two tweeters, putting out frequencies from two distinct sources where the waves will combine/cancel each other. Textbook situation to witness comb filtering. Glad it sounds good to you, because seems an awfully expensive speakers to have such an odd design choice.
Psychoacoustics come into play big time. Id post pictures of my analytic measurements but I guess I can't comment with pictures. Essentially yes, with measurements you do in fact witness symptoms of comb filtering. But our brains are super computers when it comes to psychoacoustics. Psychoacoustics matters a lot. All speakers in a room with flat surfaces will have an element of comb filtering, they may not be audible to ourĀ deafĀ human ears because of theĀ timeĀ involved in the cycle relative to how our brain interprets it, and it matters what the frequency range is, as we are more sensitive to some rangers than others per neuroscience. So psychoacoutics plays a role of course, because we do not hear the way a microphone does; the brain is a prediction engine with poor reflex, so we hear what we hear not because its reality (objective) but rather what our brain interprets after the fact, or predicted and biased towards it (subjective). Lots of metrics don't matter in the audible realm, making them more academic, and are basically too minute to physically hear the difference forĀ mostĀ people's ears. Does that mean they're not important? No. There's just a distinct difference between scales. Our hearing's scale is course and low resolution. A microphone's scale is fine and high resolution over the same period of time. This said, today's culture has access to high resolution data compared to zero data or low resolution limited data of our audio-past. So despite this, I think metrics are still incredibly important to know about from an end-user experience, to understand the what and why of your hearing's information that your brain will bias. It's not like people talking in a room sounds weird or artificial as we hear speech in a room. Our brain handles the subtle differences in SPL to result in similar experience for the most part. A more interesting question would be... where on average does our brain's interpretation of audio (psycchoacoutics) become noticeable by an average listener (ie, over 3db or more? Less?). Comb filtering or wave front cancellation (we're more interested in the loss, not the standing wave here) when heard by our ear would be loudness (audible) versus not (inaudible, insignificant in terms of end user experience). Also the tweeters have a metal mesh over the domes with a transparent plastic waveguide thats designed in such a way to disperse frequency response in tangent with the other favorably .
> Also the tweeters have a metal mesh over the domes with a transparent plastic waveguide thats designed in such a way to disperse frequency response in tangent with the other favorably . But that's not how that works. A waveguide can't make two points in space closer together. Waveguide or not, you still have two distinct points ~20 inches apart sending high frequencies to your listening position. Two tweeters present a much higher opportunity for comb filtering than a textured wall or even a window does 15ft away.
Interesting take, appreciate the write up
Dr. Floyd Toole falls on deaf ears with the likes of some of this crowd here ..
Someone on here recently sent me a very good YouTube video explaining why the majority of centre speakers are actually badly designed and give a very poor frequency response off axis.
You're probably thinking of MTM designs. In a perfect world you want your center speaker to have the exact same driver compliment as your main front channels speakers, which this center does.
I am thinking of MTM designs, but I can't see how this one wouldn't suffer from many of the same problems. FWIW my centre has exactly the same drivers and MTM configuration as my fronts, but rotated by 90Ā°, and it comb filters like crazy off axis.
Itās overblown, most still do 30 degrees off axis without problems https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/center-channel-speaker
[Can you explain how this center channel is going to perform any differently to the speakers in this comb filtering measurment demo?](https://youtu.be/0GXEine4jpg?t=270)
My brother has the Axiom version of this speaker in his custom theater and I donāt hear any issues from the abnormal design of it. Even when sitting off axis I hear dialogue clearly without a major change in the tonality. Get super far off axis and you lose the mid range and tweeter like you would any other speaker but within a reasonable listening window these things sound fine. in fact, they measure quite flat and because of all of the extra speakers, they can get really loud without any distortion. I was especially impressed with deep male voices like on the Witcher. They had an impact that I had not felt on any other speaker I had experienced. It sounded very powerful. I do pay a lot of attention to measurements and I have experienced a lot of the things that folks like Erin describes with off axis issues. But I do believe some of the comb filtering issues may be a bit overblown. We hear with two ears and not a single point microphone. We listen in a room that has a lot of reflections. Sounds bounce around our ears and our ear canals where as a microphone is sitting out in free space. I donāt feel like we hear the same as a computer does. My experience is that these sound really great from any seat in his theater. so even though everyone says they should be a mess my experience was quite the opposite. Those that havenāt experienced it probably shouldnāt be speaking from such authority.
Sometimes these type of designs have two tweeters that operate at different frequency ranges, so they're not acoustically overlapping, not sure what's going on here. They also have a standard 3-way design too (the [mini](https://bryston.com/passive/a-centers/) version).
Which speaker?
Pure awesomeness! Now you just need a screen to match! ;)
It's a 65 inch Sony, biggest I can fit on my entertainment unit. More than big enough for my room :)
65ā is enough for your room but this massive center isnāt overkill?
You think that's overkill? The front channels are powered by an anthem statement P2 pumping 500 watts RMS. The center is being bi amped by 2 channels of an anthem MCA 50, 265 watts going to the woofers and 265 watts going to the mids/tweeters.
Whatās your distance from the tv? Canāt imagine needing that large of a center. Bernie sounds great though.
Maybe 10 feet if that? And there's no replacement for displacement my friend.
The center channel is like 80% of the front stage while watching movies, why wouldn't you want the biggest center you can possibly get?
You spent all this time thinking if you could and you never stopped to ask yourself if you should.
But but butā¦. You donāt need anything more than an A/V receiver putting out 110 watts per channel. Thatās what I get told everytime I mention my Emotiva amps
Darnit! :)
BACS - Big Ass Center Speaker
I have the Elac c6.2 which ppl dunk on but I think sounds fine and that sucker is definitely a bcc
You mean BCS?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Doesnāt get nearly as low as 25hz (+|-3db) though. Thatās legit - Nearly subwoofer territory.
That is one huge Big center cspeaker, only OPās mom gets closeā¦
Welp, you fucked that title up.
Bryston had Axiom make their speakers, Axiom love to break the rules with bizarre tweeter layouts and severe comb filtering issues that they hand waved away with a 'judge with your ears not your measurements' argument like Tekton. Axiom are a weird company. The on axis response of this center is excellent, but it's all over the place off axis.
More like CFM; Comb-Filtering-Mess
Spoken like a true keyboard warrior! From all the measurements in my room I have not recorded or heard any interference from comb filtering on these speakers, simply put comb filtering really doesn't come into play until commercial applications in the PA world. I guarantee if you heard these or any other "audiophile speaker" with a dual tweeter array you wouldn't hear comb filtering, even if you knew how to listen for it.
Not calling you out, but do you happen to have any measurements of this CC? I'm curious to see what/ any interaction there is with the two tweeters
I do on my editing laptop. Measured them way back when I first got them so if I can find pdf I'll make a sharable link
I have run a bookshelf as a centre for years. The one i use now is hung from the ceiling and to enable a larger screen i remounted it sideways. I could hear it right away. I tried a handful of movies but couldnāt tolerate it so i placed it upright again.
Looking at the measurment data from Bryston who uses a Klippel for measurements, this center has a nice smooth freq response. It is 42Hz to 22kHz +/- 3db
A single frequency response chart does not show the data relevant for comb filtering.
The listening window data that they provide is the results of averaging of horizontal responses at +/- 10, 20, and 30 degrees on the horizontal axis, and +/- 10 degrees on the vertical axis. I am sure if there was comb filtering you would see it in there
Not really. Most MTM center still get +/-20Āŗ without cancelation. You'd really need to see the spinorama.
Eh, idk about 2 tweeters side by side like that...
Thatās some impressive wood youāve got there
That's a nice piece of wood in front of the tv
It's beautiful.
I really like the color of the finish on your speakers.
Is this not the TC1 center from Bryston?
First: congratulations OP on a system that clearly has you thrilled. Thatās a very nice finish on your speakers. And the system looks powerful as hell. On the other hand, this is certainly an instance that shows the difference in taste and approach among us Home Theatre fans . Iāve seen quite a number of Home Theatre enthusiast, love, huge speakers, and tons of drivers. And they love to show those drivers off: so in some systems you get the screen surrounded by huge speakers, massive subwoofer drivers a gazillion midranges, and thatās what the person likes: they like seeing every driver they paid for (case DIYād). Iām the opposite . I much prefer subtlety in the look of a home theatre system, where the screen is a centre of attention and the speakers are if not hidden by a screen, at least made more discrete. so Frances, I would find all those drivers staring at me around the TV to be wildly distracting. I did the very least put the speaker grills on. Also: Iāve always favoured that the scale of the sound match the size of the screen . Especially in the early days of Home Theatre when Home Theatre was being pushed in the AV stores I always found the very odd. There would be say a 42 inch up to 60 inch flatscreen display, with a surround system of full range speakers. They put on the inevitable demo scenes of the battle in gladiator. And then Iād feel this total mismatch between the relatively small figures running around on screen, and the massive more life-size sound. Iām hearing around me. My brain just had trouble connecting the two. Thatās why when I bought my first plasma for my initial Home Theatre set up in our family room, I bought speakers that were modest and size and the scale of the sound perfectly matched the scale of the picture . When I finally moved to a projection based system, then I upped the size of my speakers to carefully match the scale of the image I was watching . Look at the images from the OP I can pretty much guarantee my brain would experience the mismatch. Iām talking about between the dominating scale of the sound versus the modest size of the picture. But we are all happy with different things so this of course is just an opinion
I took the grilles off for the picture lol. They stay on 95% of the time. It's my livingroom, doesn't make sense to put a projector screen in it. I don't have a dedicated media theater
Fair enough.
Did you just put your big tower horizontally and called it a Big central speaker?
I'm jealous š¤©š¤©š¤©ššš
Must sound awesome!
Shoot and a miss! Change to BBC, Big Bryson Center. Then it'll be clever.
Wow that's a beautiful coffee tab.....oh. Oh dear.
That aint a center channel, this is a center channel [https://ibb.co/0nWWhq0](https://ibb.co/0nWWhq0) (your center is nice)
My father has that exact same paradigm center, believe it or not the bryston in overall dimensions is bigger, and honestly sounds a lot better. Paradigm sounded hollow in comparison; still a great center though.
I was going to be a dick but I changed my mind.
So you're getting hyper critical and defensive even though you haven't heard my center yet I have actually compared both side by side? Egotistical much. So many things you also said are flat out false. The cc390 weighs 61 pounds, the AC1 weighs 57 pounds. The drivers are more or less the same size. Yes the cc390 has 4 6.5 inch bass drivers whereas the bryston has 2 6.5 inch drivers, and actually the midrange woofers on the bryston are larger (5.25 inch) compared to the paradigms 4.5 inch. Considering the paradigm only weighs 4 pounds more yet has two more bass drivers should speak to the actual build quality and weight of the bryston. Both are a three way design, just implemented differently. I never said the paradigm sounds hollow, I said in comparison it does. Fact of the matter the paradigm is rated down to 80hz +-2db, with a low frequency extension din of 44hz. The bryston is rated down to 25hz with a din of 20hz, it's a much weightier full range sound in comparison. I didn't make this a dick measuring contest, you did, by victimizing yourself and getting your ego hit. Both are fine center channels but all your arguments are just plain dumb. (This is a reply to the comment you deleted btw.)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You sure it's not just a tower speaker that fell over? š
Wow. That is probably the most beautiful center Iāve ever seen. Would be kind of cool if the frame of the TV matched.
I have the same Warhol print in my home theater room!
Bunch of tiny speakers .....no impressato
That center channel is thiccccc
This is the way.
The bot should recommend this when people ask for soundbars.
At a (+|-3db) 22hz lowā¦ Iām sure it would out due most soundbar(and subs) in the price range..