Is timbre matching being made to big of a deal?

[Dmax]

Im always hearing things here regarding the importance of making sure your speakers in your HT set up are timbre matched. I along with many friends have HT set ups with different brand speakers ( all respectable brands) throughout our systems and they sound incredibly awesome together. I love great sound too and im starting to think the whole timbre matching thing is made a bigger deal than it really is.

[Woochifer]

Compare a properly timbre matched 5.1 setup with a mix-and-match setup, and you'll hear exactly why timbre matching proponents emphasis it as much as they do. Matching the center speaker is a tricky balancing act, because the horizontal positioning of most dedicated center speakers guarantees that the match won't be exact. But, you definitely want the match to be as close as possible, otherwise the front soundstage will have a disruption in the middle.

The benefit of timbre matching the surrounds also depends on the source. With older movie soundtracks that have most of the sound effects conveying spatial cues, you can easily get away with using nonmatched surround speakers.

But, with newer movie soundtracks and with multichannel music, the 5.1 mixes include more deliberate directionality, and can create well defined and stable side imaging along with a very realistic sense of depth perception. You can only hear these kinds of cues with properly positioned and timbre matched surround speakers.

Mix-and-match surround setups might sound perfectly fine to you, but depending on the degree of deviation in the voicing between the different speakers, you're not getting the most out of the surround effect unless you go with timbre matched speakers.

[Dmax]

Compare a properly timbre matched 5.1 setup with a mix-and-match setup, and you'll hear exactly why timbre matching proponents emphasis it as much as they do. Matching the center speaker is a tricky balancing act, because the horizontal positioning of most dedicated center speakers guarantees that the match won't be exact. But, you definitely want the match to be as close as possible, otherwise the front soundstage will have a disruption in the middle.

The benefit of timbre matching the surrounds also depends on the source. With older movie soundtracks that have most of the sound effects conveying spatial cues, you can easily get away with using nonmatched surround speakers.

But, with newer movie soundtracks and with multichannel music, the 5.1 mixes include more deliberate directionality, and can create well defined and stable side imaging along with a very realistic sense of depth perception. You can only hear these kinds of cues with properly positioned and timbre matched surround speakers.

Mix-and-match surround setups might sound perfectly fine to you, but depending on the degree of deviation in the voicing between the different speakers, you're not getting the most out of the surround effect unless you go with timbre matched speakers.

Im just a tad confused, in the beginning I was using all Polk Audio speakers in my HT set up which I still do with the exception of the surrounds which are( Bostons) and my sub ( Athena). The Bostons as surrounds sound very good but no better than the Polks but are priced much higher than my Polk surrounds and are a little bigger with a more attractive finish on them .Should I go back to the cheaper Polk surrounds for the sake of proper timbre matching with my Polk fronts and center and should my sub be the same brand as the rest my the speakers?

[Woochifer]

Im just a tad confused, in the beginning I was using all Polk Audio speakers in my HT set up which I still do with the exception of the surrounds which are( Bostons) and my sub ( Athena). The Bostons as surrounds sound very good but no better than the Polks but are priced much higher than my Polk surrounds and are a little bigger with a more attractive finish on them .Should I go back to the cheaper Polk surrounds for the sake of proper timbre matching with my Polk fronts and center and should my sub be the same brand as the rest my the speakers?

The thing to understand is that TIMBRE matching means that you are matching the "voice" characteristics of the speakers. It's not the same thing as BRAND matching. You can indeed have speakers made by the same company that will have different tonal characteristics. For example, Paradigm's Monitor series models sound different from the Studio series models.

If your Polks are from different speaker families, then it's very possible that a pair of Bostons might timbre match better than a pair of Polks from a different model lineup. But, in general, you get the best timbre match by using speakers within the same model group.

Ideally, you would go with five IDENTICAL speakers all the way around to perfectly match the surrounds with the mains. But, the center speaker typically sits around where the TV is, hence the less-than-perfectly-matched horizontal center speaker. If at all possible, try and at least ensure that the surround speakers come from the same model lineup with comparable tonal characteristics. The closer that the timbral characteristics match, the better your system will render the surround imaging with well-mixed 5.1 tracks that mix directional sound elements into both the front and surround speakers at roughly equal levels.

"Matching" the sub is not an issue at all because they focus on an entirely different part of the frequency range. The setup, level matching, and positioning with the sub are a lot more important than matching the brands.

[Dmax]

The thing to understand is that TIMBRE matching means that you are matching the "voice" characteristics of the speakers. It's not the same thing as BRAND matching. You can indeed have speakers made by the same company that will have different tonal characteristics. For example, Paradigm's Monitor series models sound different from the Studio series models.

If your Polks are from different speaker families, then it's very possible that a pair of Bostons might timbre match better than a pair of Polks from a different model lineup. But, in general, you get the best timbre match by using speakers within the same model group.

Ideally, you would go with five IDENTICAL speakers all the way around to perfectly match the surrounds with the mains. But, the center speaker typically sits around where the TV is, hence the less-than-perfectly-matched horizontal center speaker. If at all possible, try and at least ensure that the surround speakers come from the same model lineup with comparable tonal characteristics. The closer that the timbral characteristics match, the better your system will render the surround imaging with well-mixed 5.1 tracks that mix directional sound elements into both the front and surround speakers at roughly equal levels.

"Matching" the sub is not an issue at all because they focus on an entirely different part of the frequency range. The setup, level matching, and positioning with the sub are a lot more important than matching the brands.

How and what do I look for in terms of characteristics ,the surrounds all sound the same to me.BTW the Polks are all from the same model lineup (The R Series) so should I just go with those all the way to eliminate wondering if there timbre matched when I know they are?

[shokhead]

Yes. First choice would be the 3 fronts to be same brand and series. If you can get surrounds the same as mains,great. If you can get surrounds same brand as the fronts,thats good. If you can get surrounds,thats ok. Next time i get speakers,i'll get mains and surrounds the same as i think thats good for multi-channel music.

[jocko_nc]

I recently upgraded to three identical speakers. Yes, it does make a difference. The dialogs sound "right" now, like they never sounded in the past. It is critical for live music performances on DVD. I am really digging those now!

jocko

[Dmax]

I recently upgraded to three identical speakers. Yes, it does make a difference. The dialogs sound "right" now, like they never sounded in the past. It is critical for live music performances on DVD. I am really digging those now!

jocko

Does this mean that its more important for the fronts and center to be the same than the surrounds?

[thekid]

Does this mean that its more important for the fronts and center to be the same than the surrounds?

Short answer is yes.
In part because of their location relative to the other speakers where mismatched sound qualities would be more pronounced and because your rears are used more for additional sound effect so to speak in a 5.1 set up.

Having said that I still think it is worth the effort to try and match all speakers so that everything "blends" seamlessly. As mentioned this does not mean you have to go with the same manufacturer. If you look at a lot of profiles on this site you will often see different rears from the fronts and center speaker.

[Dmax]

Short answer is yes.
In part because of their location relative to the other speakers where mismatched sound qualities would be more pronounced and because your rears are used more for additional sound effect so to speak in a 5.1 set up.

Having said that I still think it is worth the effort to try and match all speakers so that everything "blends" seamlessly. As mentioned this does not mean you have to go with the same manufacturer. If you look at a lot of profiles on this site you will often see different rears from the fronts and center speaker.

I have Polk R series for my center and fronts, I also have a pair of Polk R10s for surrounds but ive been using a pair Boston CR7s that I came across real cheap for the surrounds instead of the Polks which is what the rest my system consist of. I like the Bostons because they have a slightly bigger woofer and a more exspensive look and the msrp is much higher than the Polks but theres no big difference in the sound as surrounds.Should I just use all Polks to assure proper timbre matching and put away the Bostons for now? What would you do?

[shokhead]

Try it! Thats the fun of it.

[L.J.]

I have Polk R series for my center and fronts, I also have a pair of Polk R10s for surrounds but ive been using a pair Boston CR7s that I came across real cheap for the surrounds instead of the Polks which is what the rest my system consist of. I like the Bostons because they have a slightly bigger woofer and a more exspensive look and the msrp is much higher than the Polks but theres no big difference in the sound as surrounds.Should I just use all Polks to assure proper timbre matching and put away the Bostons for now? What would you do?

Sit down and listen to both and go with what sounds right to you. I would always keep my front three within the same speaker line though. Since you have two sets of surrounds, you can just take your time with it. I perfer the same speaker line all the way around, but that's just my preference.

[Dmax]

Sit down and listen to both and go with what sounds right to you. I would always keep my front three within the same speaker line though. Since you have two sets of surrounds, you can just take your time with it. I perfer the same speaker line all the way around, but that's just my preference.

Thanx!

[westcott]

Some speaker manufacturers think that timbre is the most important characteristic of any speaker and maintaining that, especially across the front of the room, is very important.

Here is an interesting read on the topic keeping in mind he is speaking of timbre in general. I have chopped it because it is a long article. If you want the link. Ask me for it.

"Sumit: When designing a loudspeaker what are the three most important aspects of a loudspeaker according to you that one must get right?

Kevin: Timbre is the overwhelming aspect. Based on our blind listening tests timbre is the thing that differentiates between good and bad loudspeakers, but also between good and great loudspeakers. So timbre is kind of a broad term. It incorporates balance, frequency balance, or it can be thought of very roughly as frequency response. That’s a little dangerous because, not to infer that one on-axis measurement tells you what the frequency response is in a loudspeaker. It doesn’t. Other areas like off-axis response are very critical and we’ve learned that very far off-axis response like 60-75 degrees is very critical. Almost no one even measures it, let alone designs loudspeakers that are optimized at that sort of angle. But we’ve looked at real world situations and found that the all-important side-wall first reflection is a function of the speaker’s output at that kind of angle in the vast majority of listening rooms. So it means that you’re going to be hearing that kind of sound. You will hear it with a slight delay, and in many rooms without very much attenuation. So optimizing the response at that kind of extreme angle is very, very important. And then the power response, the reverberant field that we hear a little later in time is also important. So we literally design for all of those areas: the direct sound, the first reflection sound, and the reverberant field, because we know that all those three things are huge contributors to the timbre, to our perception of the speaker’s timbre.

[Dmax]

Some speaker manufacturers think that timbre is the most important characteristic of any speaker and maintaining that, especially across the front of the room, is very important.

Here is an interesting read on the topic keeping in mind he is speaking of timbre in general. I have chopped it because it is a long article. If you want the link. Ask me for it.

"Sumit: When designing a loudspeaker what are the three most important aspects of a loudspeaker according to you that one must get right?

Kevin: Timbre is the overwhelming aspect. Based on our blind listening tests timbre is the thing that differentiates between good and bad loudspeakers, but also between good and great loudspeakers. So timbre is kind of a broad term. It incorporates balance, frequency balance, or it can be thought of very roughly as frequency response. That’s a little dangerous because, not to infer that one on-axis measurement tells you what the frequency response is in a loudspeaker. It doesn’t. Other areas like off-axis response are very critical and we’ve learned that very far off-axis response like 60-75 degrees is very critical. Almost no one even measures it, let alone designs loudspeakers that are optimized at that sort of angle. But we’ve looked at real world situations and found that the all-important side-wall first reflection is a function of the speaker’s output at that kind of angle in the vast majority of listening rooms. So it means that you’re going to be hearing that kind of sound. You will hear it with a slight delay, and in many rooms without very much attenuation. So optimizing the response at that kind of extreme angle is very, very important. And then the power response, the reverberant field that we hear a little later in time is also important. So we literally design for all of those areas: the direct sound, the first reflection sound, and the reverberant field, because we know that all those three things are huge contributors to the timbre, to our perception of the speaker’s timbre.

Cool!

[Woochifer]

I have Polk R series for my center and fronts, I also have a pair of Polk R10s for surrounds but ive been using a pair Boston CR7s that I came across real cheap for the surrounds instead of the Polks which is what the rest my system consist of. I like the Bostons because they have a slightly bigger woofer and a more exspensive look and the msrp is much higher than the Polks but theres no big difference in the sound as surrounds.Should I just use all Polks to assure proper timbre matching and put away the Bostons for now? What would you do?

As L.J. mentioned, try them out for yourself and go with the speakers that provide the best tonal match. No guarantee that Polk will have the best match, but the odds are that the Polks will provide that because they likely share the tweeter, woofer, and crossover design. The Bostons' larger woofer won't provide any benefit whatsoever if they create a tonal mismatch with the mains. The "expensive" look preference depends on how much the looks play into your priorities.

I would go by whichever one gives you the best sound, and then work on properly placing it.

[Dmax]

As L.J. mentioned, try them out for yourself and go with the speakers that provide the best tonal match. No guarantee that Polk will have the best match, but the odds are that the Polks will provide that because they likely share the tweeter, woofer, and crossover design. The Bostons' larger woofer won't provide any benefit whatsoever if they create a tonal mismatch with the mains. The "expensive" look preference depends on how much the looks play into your priorities.

I would go by whichever one gives you the best sound, and then work on properly placing it.

Gotcha !

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Short answer is yes.
In part because of their location relative to the other speakers where mismatched sound qualities would be more pronounced and because your rears are used more for additional sound effect so to speak in a 5.1 set up.

.

While this may be a popular thought process, it is just plain wrong. The surrounds have a much straighter path to the ear canal than the front and center. The perception of a different timbre shows up much more in the transition from front to rear than from from left to right in the front. That is because most sound mixers avoid the center channel when panning from left to right to give a greater sense of seperation. The idea of mismatched front and surrounds originated from the prologic days when the bandwidth was limited in the surrounds, the effects of the matrix processing made timbre mismatches ALOT less noticeable, and the surrounds were not used as aggresively as they are now.

With every channel being treated equally(as they are done today) timbre mismatches show their results as a stunted rear soundfield, panning that falls apart when transitioning from front to rear, and a totally soundfield that doesn't sound complete or enveloping.
Once you have heard a timbre matched system(whether eq'd that way or not) the effect is so startlingly different that it will amaze you.

[Dmax]

While this may be a popular thought process, it is just plain wrong. The surrounds have a much straighter path to the ear canal than the front and center. The perception of a different timbre shows up much more in the transition from front to rear than from from left to right in the front. That is because most sound mixers avoid the center channel when panning from left to right to give a greater sense of seperation. The idea of mismatched front and surrounds originated from the prologic days when the bandwidth was limited in the surrounds, the effects of the matrix processing made timbre mismatches ALOT less noticeable, and the surrounds were not used as aggresively as they are now.

With every channel being treated equally(as they are done today) timbre mismatches show their results as a stunted rear soundfield, panning that falls apart when transitioning from front to rear, and a totally soundfield that doesn't sound complete or enveloping.
Once you have heard a timbre matched system(whether eq'd that way or not) the effect is so startlingly different that it will amaze you.

[thekid]

I think what Sir T is saying with more detail than what I said was that the sound in HT is traveling front to rear and so as the sound "transitions" (I am sure others can give you a more technical term....) from the front to the rear if there are timbre differences this "transition" will not be smooth and you will not get the full surround sound effect you are trying to achieve.

Bottom line timbre is important and you need to match it as closley as possible in all of your speakers. As others have mentioned timbre/sound characteristics are easier to match within a given speaker maker but can be done with other speaker makers than those of your fronts.

Sir T- Thanks for the info and my apologies in advance if my answer above has misintrepreted your reply to Dmax

[Feanor]

...

Mix-and-match surround setups might sound perfectly fine to you, but depending on the degree of deviation in the voicing between the different speakers, you're not getting the most out of the surround effect unless you go with timbre matched speakers.

I think it's also important that fronts and center, specifically the tweeters, be on the same horizontal plane. I suspect that this horizontal alignment could be more important than an exact timbre match, (though maybe not more than an approximate timbre match).

My Paradigm MiniMonitor fronts and DIY center are not an exact timbre match but the combo sounds pretty good to me, given that they are well aligned horiziontally.

[Dmax]

I think it's also important that fronts and center, specifically the tweeters, be on the same horizontal plane. I suspect that this horizontal alignment could be more important than an exact timbre match, (though maybe not more than an approximate timbre match).

My Paradigm MiniMonitor fronts and DIY center are not an exact timbre match but the combo sounds pretty good to me, given that they are well aligned horiziontally.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This may be hard to pull off with today's TV's getting bigger and bigger.

Actually with the trend in video monitors going flat this should be easier to do. I think it is high time speaker manufacturers start introducing vertically oriented center speakers. It is far easier to attain a timbre match when all of your fronts are oriented the same way and of equal height. Movie theaters understood this years ago.

[GMichael]

I think it's also important that fronts and center, specifically the tweeters, be on the same horizontal plane. I suspect that this horizontal alignment could be more important than an exact timbre match, (though maybe not more than an approximate timbre match).

My Paradigm MiniMonitor fronts and DIY center are not an exact timbre match but the combo sounds pretty good to me, given that they are well aligned horiziontally.

This may be hard to pull off with today's TV's getting bigger and bigger.

[hermanv]

This question just gets harder if you look closely. My HT fronts were 3 way speakers with a low frequency spec. of 3db down at 22Hz. After reading a lot of sub woofer reviews I realized that almost all affordable subwoofers fail to reach 22Hz. So I bought a 2 way center channel speaker with a polyprop cone for the mid and a silk dome tweeter just like my front L-R pair.

The sound of the center channel is very similar in overall character to the L-R mains if one ignores the low frequency content. If you include that content, then the timbre sounds quite different. For reasons of sheer size a full range center channel is problematic so you will see manufacturers doing what I did. They match the upper frequency components but leave out the woofers in the center channel. Legacy comes to mind as does Martin Logan.

My point is that HT receivers have large/small speaker selector options for a reason and that reason supports the idea that not all the speakers need to be identical, just well matched in the mid to upper spectrum.