Good article on multichannel speaker alignment and Studio 100 v.3s

[Woochifer]

Already posted this on the speaker forum, but it contains a lot of good stuff about the ITU configuration, which can be a good option for home theatre setup as well.

Two of Soundstage's columnists posted info/reviews on the Paradigm Studio 100 v.3 in the context of discussion other issues.

Jeff Fritz's monthly column deals with 5.1 surround music, and he used a set of five Studio 100 v.3s in the ITU multichannel speaker alignment to do this month's disc evaluations. I pretty much agree with his assertions about how much of a difference the ITU alignment makes with surround music sources (although if he's reviewing surround music discs, I wonder why it took him this long to get his speakers set up in the ITU alignment, since that's the monitoring standard that recording studios use). I've tweaked with several speaker arrangements, and the ITU arrangement (see below) has given me the best overall results out of all the ones I tried.

http://www.soundstage.com/surrounded/pics/200307_itu.gif

And I agree with his general comments about horizontal center speakers and dipolar surrounds as well. But, I will add that horizontal center speakers are a necessary compromise because a TV typically sits where the center speaker would ideally go and few people out there have dedicated 5.1 systems setup exclusively for music without the TV in the middle.

Also, I think he should have at least mentioned that for systems used with both multichannel music and movies, the best alignment for the direct firing surrounds is 2'-3' above ear level. This is what Dolby recommends because it's a good compromise that gives a good amount of diffusion of ambient effects while preserving the directional cues with movie sound effects and the imaging that you get with surround music mixes.

On the Paradigms, he basically says that the v.3 Studio 100s are ideal speakers for a surround music setup because they are full range speakers with excellent tonal characteristics.

http://www.soundstage.com/surrounded/surrounded.htm

The second column looks at the Studio 100 v.3 in the context of sound dispersion. The column has interviews with Paradigm and PSB designers and espouses the need for good off-axis response. A lot of valid information, and the column has the frequency response measurements for the Studio 100s. Very interesting because the 100s have very good off-axis response, and the overall response looks more balanced than before. With the v.2 version, I remember more of a bump in the midbass and slightly more elevated highs than what the chart shows with the v.3 version. All in all, an interesting read.

http://www.soundstage.com/gettingtechnical/pics/200312_graph1.gif
The Studio 100 v.3 on-axis frequency response and the 15, 30 degree off-axis plots.

http://www.soundstage.com/gettingtechnical/pics/200312_graph2.gif
The off-axis response at 45,60, and 75 degrees.

link to the article:
http://www.soundstage.com/gettingtechnical/gettingtechnical.htm

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wooch,

As the self proclaimed king of correct(and industry standard)speaker positioning, I have nothing but praise for the ITU standard. I have always used the equi-distant approach even before the ITU standard was set, and agreed upon. I do however have some issues with some of the comments the author made.

"With three 7" mineral-filled polypropylene woofers providing the oomph there’s plenty of dynamic capability when the music calls for it -- and many high-resolution sources do call for it. What this means in real terms is that you don’t need to augment the five primary channels with a subwoofer -- the sub is only called upon for the dedicated LFE channel, and then only when one is present on the soundtrack."

This dude get's a flying F for this comment. He assumes that no low bass in present in the L/R main channels in DVD-A and SACD mixes. WRONG!! Some mixes do not have a LFE track mixed in at all, so the really deep bass is in the main channels to be directed to the sub if bass management is used. If no sub is used in the audio system, then the L/R mains will get the full force of the deep bass which reduces their dynamic capabilites, increases distortion, and possibly lead to driver overload especially when using bass reflex loading for increased effeciency.

"The Paradigm Reference Studio 100 v.3 strikes me as the perfect speaker for plowing into high-resolution multichannel music. Its clarity, dynamic range, extended frequency response, and pinpoint imaging, are traits that ideally compliment SACD and DVD-Audio."

I would have to disagree but with a caveat. The Studio 100 v.3 is a really great sounding speaker. I had the chance to listen to this speaker on several occasions, on one occasion a pretty extended listening period. While it is a good sounding speaker, it is not "perfect" for for high resolution sources. I believe(not only through experience but through education) that the only true speaker for high resolution sources are speakers that imploy 1st order crossovers, and are time and frequency correct. These speakers have(are) neither. Speakers that are not time and phase correct smear the signal emitted from them to some degree, some worst than others. They are also unable to reproduce an accurate waveform because of the smearing effect of non time alignment. This takes them IMO out of the "perfect" realm and into the good realm depending on how much smearing is really occuring(a waterfall plot could tell this easily). Having excellent dynamic range, imaging, and extended frequency response is great and goes along way to making music sound great. But if the output from the individual drivers are arriving at the ears at all different times, then the speaker is not reproducing exactly what was fed into the microphone.

I used to be convinced that phase and frequency correct speakers were a gimmick and wasn't really important until I had my old speakers(who sound I was very familar with) remodeled and refurbished(which sound very different than they did). After listening to these "new" speakers for going on 7 months, I am thoroughly convinced that speakers that are phase and frequency correct are not a gimmick at all, but yield significantly improved tonal and imaging capabilities. If we are talking about "perfect" speakers for high resolution sources then the names Dunlavy(no longer made), Thiels and Vandersteen come to mind.

Aside from that, I thoroughly agree with the authors conclusions about the ITU setup, and matched speakers all around as opposed to a THX speaker package.

Another issue I have with the author is the fact that it was not mentioned that even matched speakers sound different in different locations because the excite a room modes and nodes differently in different position within the room. Without eq to correct these frequency mismatches audio "perfection"(used VERY loosely here) cannot possibly be reached.

Now that I have said all of that, I will retire to a corner with a KFC biscuit

[46minaudio]

(" Remember that if a speaker is not designed for an 80Hz crossover such as that employed in a typical home-theater receiver, the result when implementing such a filter on a speaker is variable at best. Ask most speaker designers how their stereo loudspeakers would sound with such a crossover employed, the bass being handled by a subwoofer placed who knows where, and you’ll get mixed reactions.")

Sir Terrence this one struck me. As it seems to go aganist alot of what I have read about HT setup..Receivers (not many I might add) really are just starting to hit the market with adjustable Xovers..80 and 90 hz fixed seems to be the norm.If a speaker designer is putting out speakers in this day and time they must know most will go into a HT system..I could be wrong but how many design speakers with this 80hz xover in mind... In defence Jeff does use the words stereo loudspeakers though...

[Woochifer]

T-man -

Well informed reply as always. You're the one who introduced me to the ITU speaker placement standard to begin with, and after I made that alignment change I haven't had to tweak with it since then. Considering that the author of that article writes surround music reviews, it really surprised me that he didn't have his speakers in that kind of arrangement to begin with. But, he's now a convert and can join the enlightened ranks!

One interesting point on the Studio v.3 is that Paradigm originally used 2nd-order crossovers in the Studio v.1 series, and then switched to 3rd-order crossovers with the v.2 series, and have now switched back to 2nd order for the v.3s. They also raised the crossover points so that the tweeter's not dipping as far into the midrange as they did in the v.2 series. That might be why I noted that the points of emphasis in the midrane changed with the v.3 series. Compared to my v.2 speakers at home, the newer v.3 version has noticeably cleaner imaging and a bigger soundstage. Not sure if that has more to do with the drivers or the crossovers or both, given that I've never heard any of the v.1 models.

The only time and phase correct speakers that I extensively auditioned were the Vandersteen Models 1c and 2ce. The 2ce I got to try out in a 5.1 configuration (looked like the ITU alignment, but I didn't have a protractor on me that day :)) and I must say that I've never heard imaging like that before, especially with cone drivers. The only drawback was that the overall sound of the Vandys just didn't sit well with me. They had an almost bizarre sound with certain sources like drums that almost sounded like they were played out of a hollow tree trunk. But, I couldn't deny how precise the imaging was, so they were very frustrating speakers since they were so good at certain things and so puzzling with others. Or maybe what I heard from the Vandys was correct and everything else that I'd heard wasn't getting it right! I only heard the Dunlavys briefly and liked them a lot more. Too bad they're not around anymore.

MMmmmmm! KFC biiiiiiiissssscuits!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=46minaudio
Sir Terrence this one struck me. As it seems to go aganist alot of what I have read about HT setup..Receivers (not many I might add) really are just starting to hit the market with adjustable Xovers..80 and 90 hz fixed seems to be the norm.If a speaker designer is putting out speakers in this day and time they must know most will go into a HT system..I could be wrong but how many design speakers with this 80hz xover in mind... In defence Jeff does use the words stereo loudspeakers though...[/QUOTE]

Good eye bud!! I think I missed that one. I think the author's cross referencing hometheater and multichannel music often betrays him as the requirements for both are quite different. I think any designer of hometheater speakers KNOWS his speaker will have a crossover point in or around 80hz. So his comments on this are a little confusing.

"One interesting point on the Studio v.3 is that Paradigm originally used 2nd-order crossovers in the Studio v.1 series, and then switched to 3rd-order crossovers with the v.2 series, and have now switched back to 2nd order for the v.3s. "

Wooch,
If you check the spec on the V.3, they are using 3rd order crossovers. Great for power handling and dynamic capabilities, but horrible for maintaining phase through the crossover point.

I also glad I could assist you on your setup, anything for a brudda ;>)

[46minaudio]

Woochifer I happen to be lucky enough to own both the 100 v2s and the 3 sigs. They are set up in 2 different rooms(houses to be exact).I like them both.However never A/Bd in the same room.I listened to both in the rooms they are both placed...All I can really say is I am one happy camper with both set ups.I will say the 3 sigs(in the room they are set up in) do female voices better.This is no way saying that the 100s and the 3 sigs are the best speakers ever,They are just what I liked...