When buying system whats the order i should buy in if i cant buy all at once

[Woochifer]

Markw nailed it down. While I think that you can get do fine without a center speaker, and are better off with no center speaker than a severely mismatched one, the most important consideration in buying a center speaker is the timbre match. And if a speaker line gets discontinued/updated, the new version might not match up as well. Given that reality, the center speaker should be a priority. If not for the need to timbre match the center speaker while it's still available, I would actually put the center speaker behind the surrounds and subwoofer in importance.

The surround speakers are not quite as critical a match, and you can get away with mismatched speakers as a temporary measure if you have some spares lying around. But, once you've timbre matched your surround speakers, there's no turning back.IMO, the split surround effect is what makes modern home theater what it is. Before DD 5.1 came along, you did not have this kind of total envelopment. Use whatever speakers you can,so you can get a hint of what surround's all about.

The timing of the subwoofer to some extent depends on the bass response from your main speakers. The Studio 20s produce a decent amount of bass for their size, but they do not go anywhere near that lower octave that you find with the LFE track on movie soundtracks. In your case, a subwoofer might be a somewhat higher priority. Between the surrounds and the sub, I would go with the surrounds, but that's my own preference. Your priorities might differ.

[kexodusc]

Markw nailed it down. While I think that you can get do fine without a center speaker, and are better off with no center speaker than a severely mismatched one, the most important consideration in buying a center speaker is the timbre match. And if a speaker line gets discontinued/updated, the new version might not match up as well. Given that reality, the center speaker should be a priority. If not for the need to timbre match the center speaker while it's still available, I would actually put the center speaker behind the surrounds and subwoofer in importance.

Not to down play the significance of a matching center (I did say earlier it would do the most work, but get the least "wow"credit) I think we have to separate theory from practice. And I say this only to provide food for thought, as it contradicts my preferred order of system building - which is get the matching Center asap.

I'm coming from having used mismatched centers and surrounds before - not "grossly mismatched", but mismatched enough. IMO, based on personal experience, if a speaker is comparable in overall performance (ie, not grossly outclassed by the mains) even a dramatically different timbre can produce far superior results to Phantom center channels which are far too limited. Timbre-matching is such an unreliable concept in practice anyway.

When I started out with HT, we were told 75% (or some ridiculous figure) of all sound was delivered by the CC ( center channel, i'm typing with 1 hand here, cut me some slack). Timbre matching was said to be imperative to creating a uniformly consistent soundfield. It is in a vacuum, no doubt. The problem is timbre is skewed so drastically by so many small factors (including placement proximity to walls, tv screens, angle off-set, crossover topology, room acoustics, etc) that calling any speaker line-up's models all '''matched" (whether voice or timbre ) is quite misleading IMO. They're only reliably matched in an anechoic chamber under exactly the same conditions. The rest of the time it's hoping for the best.

So why is it the recommended approach? Simple, most buyers can't measure or control the other factors affecting relative timbre, so the starting point (in this case the supposed timbre matched speaker) is relied upon too much. Hey, if you have to make a decision, at least make one you can defend with logic, right?
Manufacturers know this and continue to exploit it. It's the only logical step one can make in most cases.

Problem is this is a case where logic is betrayed quite often by real world results.

I've done enough of my own measurements on my own speakers to know that there's significant variation of timber (one of bass, mids, or highs, almost always gets mauled) just from moving the speaker a few feet, changing the speakers nearfield environment, or even the mic's angle. That's life - we deal with it.

Here's the kicker - the in-room timber of the front left speaker WILL be different from the in-room timber of the matching front right. And you bet your life the resulting phantom center image will have a completely different timber as well, most likely anything BUT matching.

So, what's my point? Well, I'm not really sure I have one. Except the thousands of people who use mismatched cc's or surrounds and completely enjoy their system aren't necessarily as dumb as I use to think. And I can't help but wonder how much looks/symmetry/matching brands impact the judgement of those who use matching centers. I honestly believe if we could create an experiment where Phantom center mode was compared to a quality, but completely timber-opposite (if that concept even exists) dedicated center channel, that 50% or more would still prefer the mismatched center, because of the other benefits a dedicated center provides.

So, a mismatched center for temporary use might very well sound a helluva lot better than phantom mode to you. Or maybe not. I'm in the camp that hates it for home theater if it can be helped - sounds too distracting and lacking to me, not only messing up the center, but negatively affecting the front mains, too. YMMV

But honestly, with paradigm, I wouldn't worry about being able to find a matching center later on because of model changes or whatever - especially Studios. How long are we talking here? Take a look at the frequency in which old models pop-up on ebay, audiogon, etc. It's kind of like finding ball joints for a 91 Ford Tempo - nobody will ever have a problem there. Well, maybe not that easy.

Best thing you can do is in-home demos to see which temporary step sounds best to you. Don't eliminate any options until you hear for yourself.

Or make the safe (not always best) choice and just get the matching CC.

I love revisiting old topics!

[GMichael]

WOW Kex,

How long would this have been if you still had 10 fingers to type with?

[kexodusc]

WOW Kex,

How long would this have been if you still had 10 fingers to type with?

That wuz the pain killers talkin' guys, honest - I vaguely remember posting it...some good points tho

[L.J.]

Not to down play the significance of a matching center (I did say earlier it would do the most work, but get the least "wow"credit) I think we have to separate theory from practice. And I say this only to provide food for thought, as it contradicts my preferred order of system building - which is get the matching Center asap.

I'm coming from having used mismatched centers and surrounds before - not "grossly mismatched", but mismatched enough. IMO, based on personal experience, if a speaker is comparable in overall performance (ie, not grossly outclassed by the mains) even a dramatically different timbre can produce far superior results to Phantom center channels which are far too limited. Timbre-matching is such an unreliable concept in practice anyway.

When I started out with HT, we were told 75% (or some ridiculous figure) of all sound was delivered by the CC ( center channel, i'm typing with 1 hand here, cut me some slack). Timbre matching was said to be imperative to creating a uniformly consistent soundfield. It is in a vacuum, no doubt. The problem is timbre is skewed so drastically by so many small factors (including placement proximity to walls, tv screens, angle off-set, crossover topology, room acoustics, etc) that calling any speaker line-up's models all '''matched" (whether voice or timbre ) is quite misleading IMO. They're only reliably matched in an anechoic chamber under exactly the same conditions. The rest of the time it's hoping for the best.

So why is it the recommended approach? Simple, most buyers can't measure or control the other factors affecting relative timbre, so the starting point (in this case the supposed timbre matched speaker) is relied upon too much. Hey, if you have to make a decision, at least make one you can defend with logic, right?
Manufacturers know this and continue to exploit it. It's the only logical step one can make in most cases.

Problem is this is a case where logic is betrayed quite often by real world results.

I've done enough of my own measurements on my own speakers to know that there's significant variation of timber (one of bass, mids, or highs, almost always gets mauled) just from moving the speaker a few feet, changing the speakers nearfield environment, or even the mic's angle. That's life - we deal with it.

Here's the kicker - the in-room timber of the front left speaker WILL be different from the in-room timber of the matching front right. And you bet your life the resulting phantom center image will have a completely different timber as well, most likely anything BUT matching.

So, what's my point? Well, I'm not really sure I have one. Except the thousands of people who use mismatched cc's or surrounds and completely enjoy their system aren't necessarily as dumb as I use to think. And I can't help but wonder how much looks/symmetry/matching brands impact the judgement of those who use matching centers. I honestly believe if we could create an experiment where Phantom center mode was compared to a quality, but completely timber-opposite (if that concept even exists) dedicated center channel, that 50% or more would still prefer the mismatched center, because of the other benefits a dedicated center provides.

So, a mismatched center for temporary use might very well sound a helluva lot better than phantom mode to you. Or maybe not. I'm in the camp that hates it for home theater if it can be helped - sounds too distracting and lacking to me, not only messing up the center, but negatively affecting the front mains, too. YMMV

But honestly, with paradigm, I wouldn't worry about being able to find a matching center later on because of model changes or whatever - especially Studios. How long are we talking here? Take a look at the frequency in which old models pop-up on ebay, audiogon, etc. It's kind of like finding ball joints for a 91 Ford Tempo - nobody will ever have a problem there. Well, maybe not that easy.

Best thing you can do is in-home demos to see which temporary step sounds best to you. Don't eliminate any options until you hear for yourself.

Or make the safe (not always best) choice and just get the matching CC.

I love revisiting old topics!

Great points Kex, but I'm having a hard time grasping everything.

Can you type it all again, please..........

[kexodusc]

Great points Kex, but I'm having a hard time grasping everything.

Can you type it all again, please..........

Anything for u LJ...here goes:

Not to down play the significance of a matching center (I did say earlier it would do the most work, but get the least "wow"credit) I think we have to separate theory from practice. And I say this only to provide food for thought, as it contradicts my preferred order of system building - which is get the matching Center asap.

I'm coming from having used mismatched centers and surrounds before - not "grossly mismatched", but mismatched enough. IMO, based on personal experience, if a speaker is comparable in overall performance (ie, not grossly outclassed by the mains) even a dramatically different timbre can produce far superior results to Phantom center channels which are far too limited. Timbre-matching is such an unreliable concept in practice anyway.

When I started out with HT, we were told 75% (or some ridiculous figure) of all sound was delivered by the CC ( center channel, i'm typing with 1 hand here, cut me some slack). Timbre matching was said to be imperative to creating a uniformly consistent soundfield. It is in a vacuum, no doubt. The problem is timbre is skewed so drastically by so many small factors (including placement proximity to walls, tv screens, angle off-set, crossover topology, room acoustics, etc) that calling any speaker line-up's models all '''matched" (whether voice or timbre ) is quite misleading IMO. They're only reliably matched in an anechoic chamber under exactly the same conditions. The rest of the time it's hoping for the best.

So why is it the recommended approach? Simple, most buyers can't measure or control the other factors affecting relative timbre, so the starting point (in this case the supposed timbre matched speaker) is relied upon too much. Hey, if you have to make a decision, at least make one you can defend with logic, right?
Manufacturers know this and continue to exploit it. It's the only logical step one can make in most cases.

Problem is this is a case where logic is betrayed quite often by real world results.

I've done enough of my own measurements on my own speakers to know that there's significant variation of timber (one of bass, mids, or highs, almost always gets mauled) just from moving the speaker a few feet, changing the speakers nearfield environment, or even the mic's angle. That's life - we deal with it.

Here's the kicker - the in-room timber of the front left speaker WILL be different from the in-room timber of the matching front right. And you bet your life the resulting phantom center image will have a completely different timber as well, most likely anything BUT matching.

So, what's my point? Well, I'm not really sure I have one. Except the thousands of people who use mismatched cc's or surrounds and completely enjoy their system aren't necessarily as dumb as I use to think. And I can't help but wonder how much looks/symmetry/matching brands impact the judgement of those who use matching centers. I honestly believe if we could create an experiment where Phantom center mode was compared to a quality, but completely timber-opposite (if that concept even exists) dedicated center channel, that 50% or more would still prefer the mismatched center, because of the other benefits a dedicated center provides.

So, a mismatched center for temporary use might very well sound a helluva lot better than phantom mode to you. Or maybe not. I'm in the camp that hates it for home theater if it can be helped - sounds too distracting and lacking to me, not only messing up the center, but negatively affecting the front mains, too. YMMV

But honestly, with paradigm, I wouldn't worry about being able to find a matching center later on because of model changes or whatever - especially Studios. How long are we talking here? Take a look at the frequency in which old models pop-up on ebay, audiogon, etc. It's kind of like finding ball joints for a 91 Ford Tempo - nobody will ever have a problem there. Well, maybe not that easy.

Best thing you can do is in-home demos to see which temporary step sounds best to you. Don't eliminate any options until you hear for yourself.

Or make the safe (not always best) choice and just get the matching CC.

I love revisiting old topics!

[Woochifer]

Not to down play the significance of a matching center (I did say earlier it would do the most work, but get the least "wow"credit) I think we have to separate theory from practice. And I say this only to provide food for thought, as it contradicts my preferred order of system building - which is get the matching Center asap.

I'm coming from having used mismatched centers and surrounds before - not "grossly mismatched", but mismatched enough. IMO, based on personal experience, if a speaker is comparable in overall performance (ie, not grossly outclassed by the mains) even a dramatically different timbre can produce far superior results to Phantom center channels which are far too limited. Timbre-matching is such an unreliable concept in practice anyway.

When I started out with HT, we were told 75% (or some ridiculous figure) of all sound was delivered by the CC ( center channel, i'm typing with 1 hand here, cut me some slack). Timbre matching was said to be imperative to creating a uniformly consistent soundfield. It is in a vacuum, no doubt. The problem is timbre is skewed so drastically by so many small factors (including placement proximity to walls, tv screens, angle off-set, crossover topology, room acoustics, etc) that calling any speaker line-up's models all '''matched" (whether voice or timbre ) is quite misleading IMO. They're only reliably matched in an anechoic chamber under exactly the same conditions. The rest of the time it's hoping for the best.

So why is it the recommended approach? Simple, most buyers can't measure or control the other factors affecting relative timbre, so the starting point (in this case the supposed timbre matched speaker) is relied upon too much. Hey, if you have to make a decision, at least make one you can defend with logic, right?
Manufacturers know this and continue to exploit it. It's the only logical step one can make in most cases.

Problem is this is a case where logic is betrayed quite often by real world results.

I've done enough of my own measurements on my own speakers to know that there's significant variation of timber (one of bass, mids, or highs, almost always gets mauled) just from moving the speaker a few feet, changing the speakers nearfield environment, or even the mic's angle. That's life - we deal with it.

Here's the kicker - the in-room timber of the front left speaker WILL be different from the in-room timber of the matching front right. And you bet your life the resulting phantom center image will have a completely different timber as well, most likely anything BUT matching.

So, what's my point? Well, I'm not really sure I have one. Except the thousands of people who use mismatched cc's or surrounds and completely enjoy their system aren't necessarily as dumb as I use to think. And I can't help but wonder how much looks/symmetry/matching brands impact the judgement of those who use matching centers. I honestly believe if we could create an experiment where Phantom center mode was compared to a quality, but completely timber-opposite (if that concept even exists) dedicated center channel, that 50% or more would still prefer the mismatched center, because of the other benefits a dedicated center provides.

So, a mismatched center for temporary use might very well sound a helluva lot better than phantom mode to you. Or maybe not. I'm in the camp that hates it for home theater if it can be helped - sounds too distracting and lacking to me, not only messing up the center, but negatively affecting the front mains, too. YMMV

But honestly, with paradigm, I wouldn't worry about being able to find a matching center later on because of model changes or whatever - especially Studios. How long are we talking here? Take a look at the frequency in which old models pop-up on ebay, audiogon, etc. It's kind of like finding ball joints for a 91 Ford Tempo - nobody will ever have a problem there. Well, maybe not that easy.

Best thing you can do is in-home demos to see which temporary step sounds best to you. Don't eliminate any options until you hear for yourself.

Or make the safe (not always best) choice and just get the matching CC.

I love revisiting old topics!

Lot of very good points that you bring up.

My reply to darth2222 on an earlier thread was to go with three identical speakers if he possibly can, and to go with the horizontal center speaker only if his TV placement requires that alignment. Pretty much anything along those lines is a compromise.

The issue with the center speaker ultimately boils down to what point the timbral mismatches begin to detract from the front soundfield so much that going without the center speaker becomes preferable. Obviously, that point will vary with different listeners, as will the perception of what degree of timbral match is acceptable. There are no hard and fast rules here, it's very much a subjective evaluation. Horizontal center speakers by their very design will compromise the timbre match with the main speakers. With that said, I think that the best place to start for finding a center speaker with acceptable timbre match is generally with the same company that makes the main speakers.

Certainly though, there are some manufacturers whose center speakers match the main speakers better than others. IMO, Vandersteen probably makes the best matched center speaker I've heard yet, while I've noted not so good timbre matches with center speakers made by Boston Acoustics, Bose, and B&W (though topspeed has noted that their higher lines that use the externally mounted tweeters have much better center/main speaker matches).

And the issue I noted with buying a center speaker sooner to avoid potential a model getting discontinued later also depends on how radically the manufacturers choose to update their speaker lines. With Paradigm, I know that the match between the Studio 20 v.3/CC-470 is closer than the Studio 20 v.2/Studio CC that I use. But, considering how much Paradigm revoiced the Studio models when they introduced the v.3 series, using a CC-470 v.3 center with a Studio v.2 main might yield an even bigger timbre deviation than I currently get with the Studio CC v.2 and the "matched" mains/surrounds. The timbre match that I get with the Studio v.2 series is reasonably close, but who knows how that assessment might change if I go with a v.3 series center speaker.

It might be easy to find used Studio series speakers online, but I prefer to go to a local dealer and pick them up there. I guess I'm just lazy in that way! Plus, I like knowing the entire history of my components from the moment the boxes are cracked open to whenever I choose to unload them later on.