I think IDareYa's got the right idea -- test the arrangement out before committing; try the pair of Studio 20's and the lone Studio CC, see which does the best job of anchoring the dialog to the display.

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

which one has more frequency response? i presume the studio cc... (edit: there is no big advantage from the cc, other than the array of its speakers which makes it a little better, so) that is the better one then. if they are the same quality then two would only suffer from what i said before.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited June 04, 2004).]

Any two points (or more) radiating the same frequencies at the same time in close proximity causes some amount of problem, more or less. No one has an ideal single point source for all frequencies yet, do they?

In any case, if you are going to experiment with a two speaker center scenario, besides trying one to the right and one to the left, also try one on top and one below.

stacking is a better idea than side by side. however, what is your desire to have 2 in the first place? you must already have them and just dont want to waste them. i.e. you had 6.1 and used one as a center and one as a rear center, and then moved to 7.1 and dont want an extra center speaker lying around... 1 better center channel is far superior to two centers that are less quality. im gonna go check out paradigms website.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

ok so, the center channels that paradigm offer in that line are nothing special over the mains. i dont know why companies insist on skimping on center channel speakers. the center is the most important speaker (sub is close, but if you had no dialog and only bass, you could never hear any movies...) and should be the best speaker in your system for ht. usually the fronts are the best because of music, however it doesnt take much to make a center at least as good as the best floor standing that your line offers. in the case of paradigm the studio 20s and cc570 are very similar in specs, etc. but im sure the cc costs more than 1 20. i would expect the cc570 to on par with the studio 100. and the lower cc470 designed for the other models.

enough of my rant about how companies should make center channel speakers that are better (should be the best in their line of speakers, period!). it is just perplexing and annoying that the fronts could be $50k quality and the center is $0.50 quality and they think this is fine. (exaggeration for the point...)

i know that two center speakers is a bad idea! no placement will fix this. even if the centers didnt contain tweeters (which they obviously always will), it would pose a few problems. however since they do contain tweeters you are never going to get them placed correctly to compensate.

if you had TWO center channels you can invert one on top of the other and get the sound as good as it will get seeing as the tweeters would usually sit right on top of one another. however still one center would be better.

so why do you want to use two studio 20s instead of one cc-570?

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

I find it interesting that you use the Paradigm Reference line as an example to gripe about poor quality center channels, since the Studio CC v2 (predecessor to the new Studio CC-470 and CC-570 v3 speakers) was widely regarded as an excellent center channel. As I mention earlier in this thread, I've experienced the same separation that IDareYa's noticed with my StudioCCv2 -- but I had to move the speaker almost two feet away from the top of the TV to produce that effect (an obviously poor arrangement that was done due to furniture problems and a planned TV upgrade). With the new TV in place (reducing the gap to about 10"), I've been able to largely restore the proper anchoring of audio by tilting the speaker down a bit. In IDareYa's case, he doesn't want to leave the speaker on top of the TV and he's uncomfortable putting it on a stand in front. The top location for the single center and a little downward angling would be a good experiment and is what I would probably do in his case (assuming I was likewise unable to put the center on a stand in front, which would be my preference if I had a large RPTV). If those options don't work for him and he wants to experiment with a pair of speakers bracketing the TV, I still think it's an interesting experiment to pursue. Obviously it's not ideal, but that doesn't mean he can't get some loaner speakers and give it a whirl if he wants.



IDareYa has a pretty good explanation of his circumstances in his second post (third entry in this thread).

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

build the riser so it could contain the center speaker. surely if his dogs couldnt damage his tv, they couldnt get the center speaker contained/protected right below it.

i am unimpressed with pretty much any speaker channel, even mine which claims 30Hz low end frequency and has built in powered subwoofers could be better. it is a beast too, which leads me to my reason why they typically are not as good as they could be.

size, i think most companies are scared to build a center speaker that is big in fears that it will not work for most people because they couldnt put it anywhere. this is actually a pretty wise consideration, but some people can accomodate a center the size of a floor standing and really would like the increased performance it would offer. smaller size usually forces smaller drivers, which in turn forces a smaller frequency range. however, this can be compensated by having mids and woofers, albeit woofers that are powered for the added umph. it is odd to have powered subs in your center channel, but more and more common to have them in mains (or match a sub to the fronts for the bass that the fronts cant handle). the center channel is the most important speaker, but unfortunately it is often left lacking when considering the mains in its line. this rings true up and down the realm of speaker lines/manufacturers...

obviously there are other ways to increase the performance of center channels besides powering the woofers, and they should be done as well.

your point, gonk, of how the paradigms centers are well respected is exactly my point as well. the whole frame of reference as to what a good center channel is, needs to be slid several steps above what it is now. having the best that is available is great, but my point is that the greatest that there is right now, is not as good as it should be and could be.

------------------

This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

[This message has been edited by curegeorg (edited June 04, 2004).]

If you can return the extra speaker with no problems then I say definitely try it out. It won't hurt anything. I agree that the single center channel would be the best way to go, but that is just not working out in this case so a new approach is needed. Like I said before, depending on the install and speaker it may work quite well.

Is it possible to put the center underneath?

quit biting on my ideas you dog... lol. i have said twice now that he should try it directly below so his dogs couldnt get it, and so it could be more directly correlated to the screen.

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

I'm not biting your ideas, so you heel. You had just blindly stated to put the center channel underneath without checking to see exactly what he is doing with the riser. It may not be possible.