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

[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!