Still no news over SVS full-range speakers? (1 Viewer)

[Rory Buszka]

SVS,

Perhaps for the center channel, in order to produce a slim center channel but still have reduced off-axis lobing, I recommend coupling a small-faceplate 3/4" dome tweeter with a 2" dome midrange vertically in the center, and then have the midbasses on either side. Consider as a pattern for your own drivers the Morel MDM-55 compact dome midrange, available for your viewing at Parts Express. It has a small 3"x3" square face plate and neodymium magnet structure. The rear damping chamber allows this dome midrange to be useful to 500 Hz. Then a smaller 3/4" neodymium-powered dome could be used for the tweeter instead of the traditional 1" so that the tweeter would have better detail. Then the pair could be flanked by 6.5" ceramic-magnet midbass drivers with poly cones. In my experience, the lobing in the horizontal plane is caused by the use of a crossover frequency of the midbass drivers that is just too stinkin' high.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Chris- You do get that the point of a M-TM-M design is that because the two outer mids do not have to produce freqs as high as the 2 mids in a MTM design, that the off-axis lobing is drastically reduced? The fact that the two outer mids are farther apart actually does not matter in terms of the wavelengths produced precisely because they do not have to produce as high frequencies as in an MTM design. The additional crossover is a factor, but negligible as there are many fine 3 way speaker designs available on the market today. Yes. Obviously, the recommended placement of the center channel is to have it tilted such that it directly faces the listeners. Above the screen, below it, behind it, doesn't matter as long as it is tilted towards the listener. (That's the case for an MTM design too, btw. Cabinet diffraction effects matter for both MTM and M-TM-M designs as you go vertically off-axis.) And in fact, if you do look up test results of most M-TM-M designs (S&V or SGHT again), you would see that the vertically lobing from this design is actually very small indeed compared to the horizontal lobing from an MTM design.

Sure, spacing the mids closer together in an MTM design helps, but then what other tradeoffs are you introducing in terms of cabinet rigidity? Acoustic and magnetic interference between the mids and the tweeter? (Remember what Tom said above about the spacings in center channels rarely being that of a D’Appolito array? Closer is worse in that case.)

But Ken, "good sound" is precisely the point. For everyone.

I say, a good M-TM-M design will always outperform an MTM design of similar quality. Now, if you sit in the sweet spot and you don't care about off-axis response, well that's always a choice too. But I personally strive to have good sound in my HT for all listeners and viewers.

Ron- You allude to my hope. You guys do subs so well, I would frankly be surprised if you did a generic MTM design. At the very least, a 2 and 1/2 way MTM is better than a 2 way.

 

[Chris Quinn]

I do understand that you are using a little bitty mid to reach lower than it should and try to fill a room with sound at the same time. Not a good design compromise in my book. I really don't want a 3" mid doing the brunt of the work of a center channel and trying to fill my room with sound. I'll take the opinion of the accomplished speaker designer over that of the critic. Again it is about the designers skills and not the design. Yes if your a poor speaker designer the M-TM-T is easier way to deal with horizontal lobing but it has it's own issues.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

You do realize that with a 2 way, you are also requiring the midrange drivers to produce a wider range of frequencies too? Now there's a compromise for you. Asking one driver to produce low frequencies *and* high mid-frequencies.

Personally, I'll take a 3 way design where each driver can be better optimized for a smaller range of frequencies. And, you get much better off-axis frequency response too. Win, win.

 

[CurtisSC]

Regardless of the design, I'll take what sounds better.

 

[Rory Buszka]

Well, another thing to consider is the advantages of a Neodymium magnet in producing a high-excursion dome mid. In fact, what I'd like to see is a 2" poly dome with a rubber surround and semi-horn-loaded faceplate. The dome mid should have an excursion capability of at least 1 mm each way, to displace air at lower frequencies. It is possible to build a specialized dome midrange that doesn't need especially extended top end but a more extended bottom end and a long-throw suspension. Alternatively, an aluminum dome could be pressed and used. However, I don't know enough about driver design to say how this aluminum dome could be treated to prevent harshness that comes from ringing.

 

[Steve_D]

The developing discussion is why I would be VERY careful in releasing speakers under the SVS name. As a business person myself (I own a consulting firm), I understand the desire to expand. However, because speakers are infinitely more subjective than Subs...one person's favorite is the next person's trash...I would be afraid of hurting the excellent reputation of the SVS name.

Ron, Tom, How about a different name, even potentially with a "by SVS" in it, to differentiate?

Signed,
An early customer of SVS (pre ISD!)

 

[MikeLi]

Gosh I agree with Steve above. I never thought of it until he brought it up. It would be terrible to get a bad name out of say just a mediocre speaker project. Especially when you are starting at the bottom with basically a HTIB. People may then recognize you with the lower end and forget about your big super fantastic subs.
I love the idea of a side name for speaker and "by SVS" but market them under their own name.... Not my company I know that but this does seem right. There has been a lot of companies that build good stuff only to be brought down by one product that say didn't make it but everyone just thought of it. I am sure you guys will do it right you always do.
Good Luck..
Mike L.

 

[SVS-Ron]

Steve,

Thanks for the input, we perfectly understand your point. We're a "big tent" kind of company and simply intend to extend the umbrella a bit wider. Same philosophy, closely related product. The subjective nature of main speakers is a very good thing to have in mind, you are dead on there. To some degree we deal with that already when encountering "fast" and "musical" bass of course.

There might just be some branding tweaks as we move ahead too.

Rory,

I did mention these were going to be "entry level" speakers ;^). In many ways this means the bar is set higher than it would have been if we'd embarked on a crash program to develop a "cost no object" line of speakers (which could come some day, but this is most definitely not the case this year). There are many many very good speakers in this price class, and if one is to make any money selling in an affordable price point material costs quickly become a major stumbling block. We'd like to have something else to recommend other than another brand's speakers for a change, and you can bet if we're not happy with the price/performance ratio, the plug on the whole product line would get pulled.

$50 mid range drivers (OEM cost) are unlikely to make the cut in a package likely to hover around the $999 price point including a $429 subwoofer. Esoteric baffles and designs are unlikely to make the cut. Costly or complex crossovers might not either. What IS likely to make the cut is a product, which, taken as a whole is very competitive, if not dominant, in its price class, with the sorts of support and packaging and simple but attractive design people are used to from SVS. And the very real subjective influences of sound will come to bear as well as Steve pointed out. As we well know, clean and linear are not always what peoples' ears prefer.

We'd be fools to think that any entry into this very crowded market would immediately be hailed as a price point giant killer that'll be as shatteringly obvious a choice as our subwoofers might be to some people. Good as we can do and still pay the bills in Ohio? No question. The last brand of speaker to ever consider? Almost certainly not.

As I indicated though, R/D is still in an intense period of selection and measurement (and listening) and only when they say they are happy does the rest of the process described above ensue. We sure appreciate all the insight. What's not possible with relatively inexpensive products might be possible down the road.

Ron
SVS