Using HTM4S with 803S

[K.K.]

I have ordered the HTM3S in Rosenut but the dealer (B&W Asia Showroom)could not give me any shipment dates at all.

My original intention was to get the 804S with the HTM4S. Since I've changed my mind and bought the 803S, the recommended centre is the HTM3S. However, the HTM4S is a better fit for the space I have and is less dominating in the room i.e. wife-friendly!

Due to the fact that I prefer the HTM4S for size and immediate availability, I am wondering how much a matching factor am I missing if I use this with my 803S. I have not been able to audition the HTM3S though the HTM4S seemed fine to me.

Any advice is most appreciated.

Cheers

[weijst]

Yes, well you can expect people to recommend the HTM3S and that they bring up the ever so important 'homogeneous front soundstage'... However, the HTM4S being a very nice center speaker, what makes this less true when combining it with anything else than the 805S...? Yes, the HTM3S and its bigger brothers are 'better center speakers', but I don't see why this would reflect badly on the HTM4S...

I'm comparing your situation with mine: I currently have the Nautilus HTM2 combined with the N804 ('old models'). I do realize the HTM1 would be a blast, but it also costs twice the price and, more importantly, the HTM2 is rocking..!

So if you have the cash, get yourself the HTM3S... But do yourself (and your wallet) a favour and try comparing the two when setup next to your 803S's...

Good luck and keep us posted

ps: I realize this might be the only vote for the HTM4S you'll get...

[sikoniko]

my opinion is that only you can decide. I didnt like the nhtm2 w/ my 804's...

[JetFlyGuy]

See if they will let you borrow one and try it... It may be better than you think.

[K.K.]

Thank you all. I wasn't expecting any votes for the HTM4S but weijst's comment is encouraging.

When I thought of upgrading initially, I was expecting HT:Audio ratio of 50:50 but after I bought the 803S, the ratio is more like 20:80 because I really enjoy going through every single CD I have and really listen to them!

So although I totally agree that the Centre is the most important speaker for HT, now that I am more likely to be weighted towards audio enjoyment, I am rethinking the upgrade path.

In fact I am keen to explore using HTM4S for centre and DS7 (instead of the DS8, which the dealer said would be fine) for surround dipoles, save the money and upgrade my amp instead.

I've heard the HTM4S with the 804S and I was happy with that. I will try arrange a demo of the HTM4S with the 803S. Unfortunately the dealer does not have any HTM3S available for demo.

[RebelMan]

K.K., I was in your exact situation 4 months ago, in terms of center channel choices and listening preferences. Long story short, I chose the HTM3S to go with my 803Ss because my listening prefernces are still 50:50 and the center is the most important speaker in HT.

I still feel the price of the HTM3S is too high and the size too big BUT I have no regrets and if I had to do it all over again I still would have choosen the HTM3S. Performance wise, I found the HTM3S fuller and more open than the HTM4S.

Given that you prefer music to movies 4 to 1 I would consider the HTM4S over the HTM3S in your case. Take the money you would save on the HTM3S and apply it to a better (2 channel) power amplifier or bank it.

[K.K.]

Thanks RebelMan. I spoke to my dealer and he suggested that I wait till he get the HTM3S demo unit in and then test out both centre speakers with the 803S.

Out of interest, are you setting the AV processor to Large or Small for your HTM3S? I know this is an HT matter but since I am trying to figure out a point regarding choosing between an HTM3S and an HTM4S, I hope the Moderator will tolerate me here :

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Guy Kuo from AVIA DVD advising setting to Small and let the subwoofers handle the LFE.

"The setting of speaker size and bass management tremendously affects how bass is handled for each channel. Speakers set to "small" have their low bass routed to the bass output channel (s) which can be either just the subwoofer , the "large" speakers or some combination of subwoofer and large speaker depending on how the receiver is set up.

We highly recommend setting all speakers to "small" because the very very low bass content down to the 20's Hz simply is not as well reproduced by most main speakers as a dedicated sub. Even if one has powered subs inside the main speakers, room placement of those speakers is rarely if ever the best location for bass reproduction. By setting the speakers to "small" you give each speaker a chance to excel in what they do best.

If a speaker is set to "large" its low bass content will not be sent to the subwoofer output. Remember this!"

If this is the case, then would it matter whether it is an HTM3S or HTM4S since anything below 80hz gets passed through to the subwoofer under HT DTS Surround or Dolby Digital Surround?

I agree that it would matter if using for multi-channel audio but I am not keen on multi-channel audio in my case.

Any ideas on this?

[RebelMan]

Actually K.K. it really is not that simple. The advice give by the article is in most circumstances true, however, there are plenty of exceptions. Several factors to consider are the range of speakers used, the power amplifier used to drive them, the placement of the speakers, and the conditions of the room.

I have a ROTEL RB-1080 (200 wpc) driving my 803Ss and a ROTEL RSX-1056 (75 wpc) driving the center and surrounds (HTM3S and SCMSs respectively). I have tried the following two configurations... (1) All speakers set to LARGE and (2) L and R set to LARGE and the center and surrounds set to SMALL.

The first arrangement produces a balanced and fuller presentation in 5.1 surround. The LFE effects are present but less obvious is the sub's localization. The second arrangement introduces some inconsistencies with base response as the mains and sub are picking up the low frequencies from the other channels but there is more presence in the front stage and it is less taxing on my 1056.

So, given a choice between the two I prefer the first but I would also prefer to be driving the center and surrounds with a more powerful amplifier too.

Note: .1 encoded LFE effects are always played by the subwoofer. However, it maybe under utilized for "mixed" low frequencies when all speakers are set to LARGE.

P.S. I would only set ALL speakers to SMALL if I were driving a pair of 805Ss and the HTM4S instead of the 803Ss and the HTM3S.

If this is the case, then would it matter whether it is an HTM3S or HTM4S since anything below 80hz gets passed through to the subwoofer under HT DTS Surround or Dolby Digital Surround?

It most definitely matters. The HTM3S is far better at reproducing midrange frequencies than the HTM4S is. To me the HTM4S sounds "veiled". Since the center channel does ALL of the dialog, I prefer the clarity of the HTM3S over the HTM4S.

[jlee]

Thanks RebelMan. I spoke to my dealer and he suggested that
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Guy Kuo from AVIA DVD advising setting to Small and let the subwoofers handle the LFE.

"The setting of speaker size and bass management tremendously affects how bass is handled for each channel. Speakers set to "small" have their low bass routed to the bass output channel (s) which can be either just the subwoofer , the "large" speakers or some combination of subwoofer and large speaker depending on how the receiver is set up.

We highly recommend setting all speakers to "small" because the very very low bass content down to the 20's Hz simply is not as well reproduced by most main speakers as a dedicated sub. Even if one has powered subs inside the main speakers, room placement of those speakers is rarely if ever the best location for bass reproduction. By setting the speakers to "small" you give each speaker a chance to excel in what they do best.

If a speaker is set to "large" its low bass content will not be sent to the subwoofer output. Remember this!"
Any ideas on this?

That's why a I recommend a REL connected via hi-level for each speaker. You effectively make each speaker a super speaker that drops off -6dB anywhere from 9Hz to 18Hz. Even the 801 only go to 23 Hz -6dB.

What the guy is saying has SOME truth to it, but keep in mind all the bass will then be combined into 1 huge MONO signal from all the bass sources (usually 1 in most systems)... and in a way, this can overload the sub, not to mention sound bad because it's coming from 1 source and bass is still somewhat directional, no matter what they say. Ideal setup I've found is 1 sub in each corner to evenly load the room, and then center set to small. I still haven't tried 5 subs yet... will try it with center sub against wall, but so far, what I found is odd number of subs causes interference and some waves cancel, causing hot and cold spots... the 4 in the corner produced the best overall balance.

[RebelMan]

What the guy is saying has SOME truth to it, but keep in mind all the bass will then be combined into 1 huge MONO signal from all the bass sources (usually 1 in most systems)... and in a way, this can overload the sub...

Quality subs are designed to handle these loads though two are better than one.

...not to mention sound bad because it's coming from 1 source and bass is still somewhat directional, no matter what they say. Ideal setup I've found is 1 sub in each corner to evenly load the room, and then center set to small. I still haven't tried 5 subs yet... will try it with center sub against wall, but so far, what I found is odd number of subs causes interference and some waves cancel, causing hot and cold spots... the 4 in the corner produced the best overall balance.

I partially concurr with this statement, although, multiple subs are just too impractical for most if not all HT cases.

[jlee]

1. Quality subs are designed to handle these loads though two are better than one.


I partially concurr with this statement, although, multiple subs are just too impractical for most if not all HT cases.

1. Yes... BUT... if you have a scene with a ton of LFE, that alone is enough work for the sub... now, if even just 2 more speakers (let alone all 5!) are being put through a workout in "large mode", which in turn gets passed to the sub if they are set to small, there is no sub in the world capable of truly reproducing all 6 signals the way they are supposed to sound. Try Saving Private Ryan for example (most of the movie, but the end scene with the tank hovering close to the soldiers while they are in a trench is earth shattering to say the least)... all 5 speakers are working super hard.

2. Although my 4 sub system is beyond what most people would be willing to put up with, I think most HT's would benefit from 2 REL subs... 1 in the front and 1 in the back for balanced room loading. You could have the front sub supporting the mains, the rear sub supporting the rears, and the center set to small. I would disagree with your impractical statement for "most if not all"... I would say it's impractical for "many" but I wouldn't go as far as say "most" HT setups... 4 subs maybe... 2 subs no . 2 is still "multiple" and very doable.

PS I know of a guy that runs 5 REL Studios in his system.

[RebelMan]

1. Yes... BUT... if you have a scene with a ton of LFE, that alone is enough work for the sub... now, if even just 2 more speakers (let alone all 5!) are being put through a workout in "large mode", which in turn gets passed to the sub if they are set to small, there is no sub in the world capable of truly reproducing all 6 signals the way they are supposed to sound. Try Saving Private Ryan for example (most of the movie, but the end scene with the tank hovering close to the soldiers while they are in a trench is earth shattering to say the least)... all 5 speakers are working super hard.

I am curious how you came to that conclusion.

In the case of line level inputs, the sub is really only processing one signal not six. Granted, the signal contains information that has been extrapolated from the other channels and combined to form it but it is still just one. This is the fundamental job of bass management DSP control circuits found in the majority of processors today.

Likewise in the case where the sub is taking full band speaker inputs. The only difference being that the crossover network in the sub is handeling the work that would normally be relegated to the processor. But even in this case it is still far from six. In either case, to accurately reproduce ALL of the low frequencies would require a dedicated sub for each channel. So the point is really moot.

2. Although my 4 sub system is beyond what most people would be willing to put up with, I think most HT's would benefit from 2 REL subs... 1 in the front and 1 in the back for balanced room loading. You could have the front sub supporting the mains, the rear sub supporting the rears, and the center set to small. I would disagree with your impractical statement for "most if not all"... I would say it's impractical for "many" but I wouldn't go as far as say "most" HT setups... 4 subs maybe... 2 subs no . 2 is still "multiple" and very doable.

I don't disagree that it would be ideal, but it is just not practical for the majority of users. Perhaps in your community it is so and in mine it is not. Technically we are both making unsubstantiated suppositions here. Perhaps a non-scientific poll could reveal the truth. Afterall, if anyone is doing this don't you think it would be the people of this forum?

[jlee]

I am curious how you came to that conclusion.

In the case of line level inputs, the sub is really only processing one signal not six. Granted, the signal contains information that has been extrapolated from the other channels and combined to form it but it is still just one. This is the fundamental job of bass management DSP control circuits found in the majority of processors today.

Likewise in the case where the sub is taking full band speaker inputs. The only difference being that the crossover network in the sub is handeling the work that would normally be relegated to the processor. But even in this case it is still far from six. In either case, to accurately reproduce ALL of the low frequencies would require a dedicated sub for each channel. So the point is really moot.


2. I don't disagree that it would be ideal, but it is just not practical for the majority of users. Perhaps in your community it is so and in mine it is not. Technically we are both making unsubstantiated suppositions here. Perhaps a non-scientific poll could reveal the truth. Afterall, if anyone is doing this don't you think it would be the people of this forum?

1. Yes, it's 1 signal, but it can be 1 really really really big signal onces all 6 channels are extrapolated and "summed" into it...

Let's take a side step and look at the way the Rotel RSP-1066 used to sum the L+R channels for 3 channel stereo. The early versions did this incorrectly. They summed both channels but forgot to reduce the level by 3dB and therefore when u played something in 3 channel stereo, the center would completely DOMINATE, which is wrong... each channel should have the same level. The new 1068 and 1098 fixed this... the processor sums the MUSICAL INFORMATION INTO ONE, but then lowers the volume by 3dB to compensate since it's 2 sources... now, for the sub, since each of the 6 signals is supposed to be discrete, there should be no reduction in volume... so what I think happens in this situation is processor dependent. I highly doubt any of the Rotel processors do this properly because they can only output 1.2V maximum anyways. I SUSPECT (but somebody from Rotel correct me if I'm wrong) that by the time all 6 signals are combined, all the information may be there, but at the wrong volume since it will be limited by the 1.2V output! So you may get a signal that has all 6 channels of info, but nowhere near as loud as it should be played. Somebody step in and correct me if I'm wrong. That's the way I understand it so far. It's also possible some cheaper processors simply combine all the info but output it at the same level as it would if it were just 1 channel!

That aside, even if the volume was correct one cannot realistically expect any sub to faithfully reproduce such a signal - 2 channels maybe, but 5?? it would be all over the place... it may have to move tremendous amounts of air for 1 channel while simutanously reproducing a more subtle bass note from another channel? ... and, even if it could, you can't possibly match all the phasing for all 5 speakers.. set the phase ideally for the front and it may not be ideal for the back (although in certain rooms I guess you could get lucky and 1 setting would be optimum for both). The one thing we both agree on is that the bass signals are not accurately produced, and to me it's just not "hifi" any more... which is why I say 2 subs is the way to go in a "hifi" HT setup.

I used to think 1 sub was plenty... when I bought my Strata III, I read up about it... Sumiko was recommending 3, but I thought that was for the extravagant systems only... well 6 months later, I tried a 2nd sub and realized all the info I was missing... then 6 months later, I tried a 3rd sub... I was then getting all the info and I was pretty happy.. .the 4th sub was icing on the cake and wasn't added until well into my "hifi career" LOL... it was more so I could have awesome 2 channel and a balanced room loading for HT since with 3 subs, u get these weird hot and cold spots on certain bass notes.

2. Maybe we can do an informal poll. I agree that MOST are NOT doing it, but I suspect it's not because it's "impractical" in their setup (most means 50% or more, and I still think that it is within "practicality" for 51% of the systems to incorporate 2 subs even though 95% of the population probably "chooses" not to).. they probably just don't know what they're missing ... or that they are "taught" that the 0.1 means 1 sub does the job... and anything more is a luxury... or that they think their money is better spent elsewhere. After many hours of A-B-A testing (using Gladiator, Final Fantasy, and many other DVDs), I have come to the conclusion that to fully appreciate all the information that is recorded in many DVD's, you need 2 subs. There will be scenes in many movies where you don't know what you're missing until you have a sub in the back to reproduce what the director intended because even a full range speaker will not even come close to being able to let you begin to hear (or should I say feel) some of the really deep bass notes. Some of the really deep bass believe it or not does not come through the 0.1, it goes directly through to the rear speakers. To me, it is more important to hear all the director intended than spending say $1500 (full retail cost of a REL strata III, which I consider the definitive value in musical subs) to get an incremental improvement elsewhere in the system. Now, if you set the rear speakers to "small" you then divert all the bass below 40Hz to 1 sub in 1 corner, which could be very far away from the speakers themselves. We are then relying on the ability of the processor to divert this properly, and we run into all sorts of other problems that is beyond the scope of this thread as discussed above.

Anyways, not trying to sound like an ass... just trying to share information to the best of my knowledge. I'm constantly learning as much as I can about my system. Cheers.

[RebelMan]

Hmm, I am a little puzzled by this hypothesis. I take it by this account that the THX specification, and the like, are in error? Perhaps the engineers that established it need to rethink what is really required for discrete 5.1 (6.1 or 7.1) surround?

That aside, even if the volume was correct one cannot realistically expect any sub to faithfully reproduce such a signal - 2 channels maybe, but 5?? it would be all over the place... it may have to move tremendous amounts of air for 1 channel while simutanously reproducing a more subtle bass note from another channel? ... and, even if it could, you can't possibly match all the phasing for all 5 speakers.. set the phase ideally for the front and it may not be ideal for the back (although in certain rooms I guess you could get lucky and 1 setting would be optimum for both).

The one thing we both agree on is that the bass signals are not accurately produced, and to me it's just not "hifi" any more... which is why I say 2 subs is the way to go in a "hifi" HT setup.

Quality subs will faithfully reproduce the signal that is feed into them, assuming all else being equal. However, like you said we agree, they will not accurately reproduce the discrete low end frequencies of each channel as they have been mixed into one. I'll reitterate that multiple subs are the preferred way to go but they are just not practical.

Practical by definition simply means to put into use. If the designers of the Dolby Digital, DTS Digital and THX specifications believed it was practical to utilize multiple subs, why didn't they? We have seen 5.1 surround channels grow to 7.1 surround channels. Where are the subs? Where are the 5.5 and 7.7 channels that are really needed to accurately reproduce the full bandwidth? I guess they thought it was impractical too.

Anyways, not trying to sound like an ass... just trying to share information to the best of my knowledge.

I know.

Needless to say, I believe we have addressed the limits of this issue and it is now in our best interests to adhere to the rules of this forum by sticking to the topic at hand going forward.

P.S. If you would like to discuss this issue further, please PM me.

[K.K.]

It most definitely matters. The HTM3S is far better at reproducing midrange frequencies than the HTM4S is. To me the HTM4S sounds "veiled". Since the center channel does ALL of the dialog, I prefer the clarity of the HTM3S over the HTM4S.

Okay. Point noted on the mid range superiority. I was expecting that the HTM3S and HTM4S to have similar mids to highs and only bass differences. But since the crossover points are different for both, I can believe that the characteristics would be different too despite speakers coming from the same 800 family.

Wow... that's heavy stuff between RebelMan and jlee. I find it interesting reading but must admit it is quite heavy going for me to follow everything.

Actually I am using two existing REL subs (but the Q200E model) with my 803S to augment the really low frequency on stereo and HT. The way I've set it up is a little different from most.

1. Both subs connected to AV amp LFE channel on Low Level Inputs
2. Both subs connected to my power amp R & L passthrough on Low Level Inputs
3. I don't use the High Level Inputs despite REL favouring this
4. Both subs and R & L channels crossover integrated using BFD (connected to subs only), which is also used as a parametric equaliser to remove hanging boominess in the room acoustics environment

So basically when I listen to stereo, my subs are taking the same signal as my 803s and deals with the really low frequencies.

And on HT, the subs handle the LFE and also the low frequency to the 803s (which are set as Large speakers).

Anyway it is an uncommon setup but works well for me in the sense that it gives me a nice balance for both music and HT. And it also buys me time to look around for a more powerful amp than my MF A3cr, which I really like as a power amp.

[jlee]

Okay. Point noted on the mid range superiority. I was expecting that the HTM3S and HTM4S to have similar mids to highs and only bass differences. But since the crossover points are different for both, I can believe that the characteristics would be different too despite speakers coming from the same 800 family.

They will have similar highs. The mids will be significantly different for a few reasons:
1. FST driver in HTM3S is far superior in eliminating standing waves.
2. Depending on material, because the bass driver in HTM4S ALSO has to handle mids, the further away the driver is from center (ie. when there is lots of low bass) the harder it will be for it to simulataneously reproduce the mids and midbass faithfully and at proper volumes. If you listen to both back to back in action scenes, what you will find is that the HTM3 will give you FAST AND HARD impact that hits you in the chest on collisions and other strikes or blows during a fight for example. The HTM4S will give you that impact sound but it will "linger" longer and not feel as impactful. With the HTM3S, it's BAM!!!!!!!!! and that's it. With the HTM4S, it's "BOOOOMMM!". Remember to compensate for the 2dB less efficiency in your processor when testing .

[jlee]

1. Hmm, I am a little puzzled by this hypothesis. I take it by this account that the THX specification, and the like, are in error? Perhaps the engineers that established it need to rethink what is really required for discrete 5.1 (6.1 or 7.1) surround?

2. Quality subs will faithfully reproduce the signal that is feed into them, assuming all else being equal. However, like you said we agree, they will not accurately reproduce the discrete low end frequencies of each channel as they have been mixed into one. I'll reitterate that multiple subs are the preferred way to go but they are just not practical.

3. Practical by definition simply means to put into use. If the designers of the Dolby Digital, DTS Digital and THX specifications believed it was practical to utilize multiple subs, why didn't they? We have seen 5.1 surround channels grow to 7.1 surround channels. Where are the subs? Where are the 5.5 and 7.7 channels that are really needed to accurately reproduce the full bandwidth? I guess they thought it was impractical too.

Ok 1 last post, I promise . I'm not trying to "1 upsmanship" you. I just wanted to clarify a few things so I may be better understood and hopefully that will translate in more people helping me when it's time for me to ask some upgrade questions.

1. All those specs are not in error. 5.1 with 1 DISCRETE sub channel is all that is needed. My setup is still 5.1, even with 4 subs. What I was referring to is that when people don't have full range speakers (and how many people REALLY do anyways? Not many), and set their speakers to small, the poor sub is then reproducing the 0.1 along with all the bottom end of all the small speakers. The other 5 speakers only have to reproduce their own signals. This then leads to #2 below...

2. At low to medium volumes, a quality sub will have no problem reproducing all the signals (we'll ignore phase and directionality for now). Ok, but now let's say you have the thing cranked up and playing at 90-95% of what it's capable of (ie. reference levels). Let's say there is a scene with HEAVY LFE where the sub is virtually maxing out it's amp. If 1-2 more channels are now redirecting their low bass to the sub, it may still be ok. If ALL FIVE are redirecting, the sub will usually run out of power (resulting in compression, distortion, or just all the bass reproduced at a lower volume if it has a safety feature built in to "soft clip" the signal).. One example of such a scene is in Saving Private Ryan at the end where the tank is hovering by the soldiers in the trench. Not only is a lot of LFE being used, all 5 normal channels have a TON of bass information going to each.

3. 5.5 and 7.7 is not necessary. It's still 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1. 1 sub is all that is needed for the 0.1. When you start using the poor sub to also help the other 5, 6, 7 channels, that is when another one could really be used to help ease the load.. especially if you like listening at reference levels.

In my 4 sub setup, this is how I've got it setup:
1) All 4 subs receive the same 0.1 channel, allowing me to set the volume lower and allow them more "headroom" to support the other speakers. A side benefit of this is that the response is VERY EVEN throughout the room. With odd number of subs (1 or 3) you get more hot spots.
2) Each sub supports only 1 additional speaker in "hi-level."
3) Center speaker is set to small and thus technically, it's low end information below 40Hz is reproduced at ALL FOUR subs, which is not ideal, but what I found to be the best compromise until I try a 5th sub.

Since each REL can support up to 2 more speakers, I could have connected the center to one of the front subs, but the way I have my cabling setup (I've attached 1 pic - ignore the extra REL cable in the pic ), I opted not to until I can try a 5th sub and see what happens. I run a custom 6ft cable to each sub, and it doesn't reach the CAM-350 for the center. Oh, the other reason is that I've got the subs connected via balanced hi-level connection, meaning both signal cables are connected to the amp leads, and then the ground is connected to chassis ground on the amp (basically any screw touching the chassis). That alone doesn't allow me to connect the center amp to it.

Hope that clears things up... knowing me, that probably confused things :B