Within the past couple of years I saw a center channel speaker build (I think in Parts Express, Speaker Project Gallery) that caught my attention. It wasn’t so much about the build but the principle behind the design. The builder/designer placed great emphasis on that center channel with good reason. His reasoning was that a large percentage of the total sound produced by most home theater systems comes from that center channel.
His design was LARGE for a center channel speaker. The largest I’ve ever seen. At least a 2-way system, probably a 3-way. Woofers were 6 ½†minimum but most likely 8â€. There were 4 of these across the front baffle with the mids and tweets in the center, D’Appolito style. His premise was that to handle the amount of information that should be produced via that center channel speaker, you need a LARGE radiating area. Of course his own listening tests were glowing about his design.
So this “large radiating area†got me thinking. Could this be a contributing factor to our impressions of speaker quality and satisfaction? I’m fairly new to these parts but I get the feeling there’s not a lot of screechy little studio monitors in this group. More like multiple 15†woofs, big ass horns, with multiple mids and tweets. One of my most satisfying sets of speakers was a first generation set of Magnaplaners. BIG radiating area plus that dipole effect. Could this large radiating area be a contributing factor in listener satisfaction with planer magnetics and electrostatics? How about some of those big line arrays we see as well as just BIG speakers. I’m thinking of the old JBL L200 and 4300 series of studio speakers as well as the bigger Klipsch and Infinities. Monsters!
So this may die with this single post of mine but I’d love to hear opinions about this “large radiating area†and its contribution to our listening satisfaction. It sounds plausible to me but I don’t recall ever hearing anything about this in ANY speaker review I’ve ever read. Does a big speaker sound better, fuller, at lower volume levels? Are we trading off dynamics for that large radiating area? What do you think?
His design was LARGE for a center channel speaker. The largest I’ve ever seen. At least a 2-way system, probably a 3-way. Woofers were 6 ½†minimum but most likely 8â€. There were 4 of these across the front baffle with the mids and tweets in the center, D’Appolito style. His premise was that to handle the amount of information that should be produced via that center channel speaker, you need a LARGE radiating area. Of course his own listening tests were glowing about his design.
So this “large radiating area†got me thinking. Could this be a contributing factor to our impressions of speaker quality and satisfaction? I’m fairly new to these parts but I get the feeling there’s not a lot of screechy little studio monitors in this group. More like multiple 15†woofs, big ass horns, with multiple mids and tweets. One of my most satisfying sets of speakers was a first generation set of Magnaplaners. BIG radiating area plus that dipole effect. Could this large radiating area be a contributing factor in listener satisfaction with planer magnetics and electrostatics? How about some of those big line arrays we see as well as just BIG speakers. I’m thinking of the old JBL L200 and 4300 series of studio speakers as well as the bigger Klipsch and Infinities. Monsters!
So this may die with this single post of mine but I’d love to hear opinions about this “large radiating area†and its contribution to our listening satisfaction. It sounds plausible to me but I don’t recall ever hearing anything about this in ANY speaker review I’ve ever read. Does a big speaker sound better, fuller, at lower volume levels? Are we trading off dynamics for that large radiating area? What do you think?
