I have these Golden Ear Center CH speaker and they "had" load of problems. The problem I heard are absolutely problems that Danny found during testing. His crossover design made this a CH that is worthwhile component.. I purchased a different PP tweeter cap just wanted a top of the line cap, which is a cap I can afford. When watching a show and it's difficult to understand nown on Subtitles that a miracle. Great Job
Like most center channel speakers, the horizontal dispersion is lackluster - exactly the opposite of what you would want for a center channel. As you mention ...
Looks like a good job. 3 seats wide on a couch, dispersion wise, is pretty damn respectable for a center channel speaker in a surround sound system. Wonder if he did any measurements with the sock in place? Probably tones down that bump in the tweeter a bit. My old boss met Sandy when he was with Polk in the early eighties at CES, there's a great story I can't tell here involving the two of them, a man purse and a Vegas bathroom attendant.
Another great job I dont now why such wide centre channel speakers with all those drive units are made they all will have the same horizontal axis problems
I'm pretty sure Sandy doesn't design speakers anymore. Since he founded and owns Golden Ear, he can others working for the company doing the designing work.
Just a thought, before you create a new crossover do the drivers have to be "burned/worn" in ? Would a new driver measure different to a used driver? Love the videos 👍 Kind regards from Turkey 👍
I'm curious if the Invisa SPS has better off axis. I'm considering using them for LCR since the wife is requiring in-wall for our next setup. I'd really prefer to continue using your designs but unfortunately in-wall isn't one of your design choices :(
I have watched quite a few of your videos with center channels and it seems the larger they are, they tend to have a hole in the frequency response the more you get off access. Makes me ask, is it better to use a book shelf turned on its side, even though it does not look as aesthetically pleasing?
if you turn it on its side - check the vertical off axis response first. If it has a wide dispersion and is symmetrical (up and down), you are probably good to go.
No, it's not better to have a bookshelf speaker on its side. Position it upright, normal vertical orientation. If you're going with a center channel; Three identical, vertically oriented LCRs across the front.
Ordinarily I would be the first to say that you aren't pushing products, but why are you putting additional cost tube connectors in the kit when there are no steel parts in the binding post. If it has no steel then you don't have justification for putting in the tube connector, now we have entered the realm of pushing products. It is pointless going through the whole "look it's got steel nuts on it" spiel if your going to replace them anyway.
Besides avoiding steel parts, which hold a residual charge and smear the signal, Danny previously said he prefers binding posts with low mass and high contact area (as long as the posts are strong enough). How it specifically improves the sound, I don't know.
@@BruceCross and I get that, but if you are going to recommend the tube connectors for everything that is not tube connectors, then you are recommending them for everything. I get that he would recommend them for binding posts that have steel nuts or are just generally low quality, but when a speaker has a half decent binding post to begin with then the value proposition of the tube connector is diminished. It is a fair amount of the kit cost for questionably gain.
Just because a binding post doesn't have steal parts doesn't mean it's top notch. There is still a clear audible improvement going from a Brass binding post to a solid Copper tube connector, and that audible improvement is well worth the cost.
Every manufactured speaker assembly only sounds best housed in Instrument grade plywood surfaced six sides. Density laminations matched applicably to desired pronouncement of caricature depth. It is a thing 🙃 T Y great place great information. side by side if I had to describe it. There's a kinda found wisdom. I mean you could move into seasoned exotic woods They gain resonance with age.Ha. there's no end to it. Which makes it great! Still analog is closest to original progenitor. Modern day audio annunciation units. Are designed around the digital conduit. Commerce design expenditure's preclude natural wood cabinet's augmentations. It can't be equaled. Those pressure measurements won't see it digitally. What we don't know that can help somewhat hurts. But if everyone forgets. Your arguments become fiction?
I love your videos Danny but ALL your Upgrades seem entirely measurement based. How often do you listen to these? In affect your creating a new speaker something of which takes manufacturers ages in the development process. A morning of measurement based crossover designed doesn’t make a speaker. Some of the most enjoyable speakers dont necessarily measure well. As you know as soon as you put them in a room the 1watt, 1 meter parameters go out the window. Ive designed many flat response speakers with good CSD and impedance characteristics but put them in a room and there just not right. Fine tuning is then done by ear. I use measurements all the time but we dont listen to our speakers on a computer screen. I'm fairly sure once you have finished the measurement process on your own designs you listen and tweak, listen again and tweak and finally listen again. If not you'd be designed new speakers every day. This isn't a dig it's just a observation
We actually have spent a significant amount of time listening and comparing each and every part that we use compared to different brands, types, etc. So we have a good baseline as to the audible effects of each and every part. So we know what the audible differences are between a high quality poly cap and an electrolytic cap. We don't have to build it and A/B compare it for every single speaker we work on. The same goes for inductors. We know the audible difference in a small gauge iron core coil versus a large gauge air core. We've made that comparison. We know the effect. No need to make that A/B comparison every single time we design an upgrade. We know we are making an improvement, in what area, and how. We know removing a cheap binding post and replacing it with tube connectors improves clarity every time. It does not change the tonal balance of a speaker or how it interacts in the room. We know that we can replace old PCV jacketed and well oxidized wire with high purity OFC in polyethylene and make a clarity improvement. We know that adding No Rez to a cabinet will damp out resonances. So the upgrades are much more than just measurement based. Also this notion, "....something of which takes manufacturers ages in the development process", is a myth. Most speakers in these price points are designed to have a reasonable response and then they pick parts based on price. There is no tuning process to the development. Another thing to keep in mind. How a speaker measures isn't a measurement of how it sounds. It is a measurement of how accurate it is. How it really sounds has just as much to do with the things we don't measure.
@@dannyrichie9743 Absolutely agree with your comment regarding component quality. That's just a given. We all know this. Getting steel / iron based parts out of the signal path, using better quality capacitors, copper air core inductors instead of iron core thin gauge crap is a clear upgrade and we all know why mass produced speakers use cheap parts. My question didn't relate to parts quality. It related to listening to these speakers after your redesign. You are redesigning these speakers. Your 9 times out of 10 not just replacing parts like for like value wise with better components. Your designing a completely new crossover. The only thing set in stone us the drivers used and the cabinets there installed in. We listen to speakers. We don't watch them on a screen and convince ourselves that because they measure well they must sound good. Measurements are purely a indicator as to how accurate they are to the source and not a representation of how they sound. So you have to listen to them and then revisit the design. Are you telling me your finished speaker kits were not evolved and tweaked after many hours of listening? Surely it wasn't a case of building cabinets for your drivers and a day of crossover design to then say 'done?
In watching other videos produced by Danny I've noticed that a speaker might 'measure' cleanly but the poor quality of the components contribute to a muddy or lackluster sound quality. I've watched videos where Danny told all of us how much he listens to the speakers so he could tell the difference that quality components make in the richness and clarity of the sound reproduction. Just my 0.02 cents worth and I'm a nobody in the world of high end audio. Be well and stay happy!
@@BigHeinen Better components will definitely improve things. It's always a cost issue with mass produced speakers. That's why cheap components are used. My question relates the the complete redesign of the crossover and not just a parts upgrade. GR Research redesign crossovers for a lot of speakers. This redesign is based around measurements which is a big part of the story but the final voicing is a listening process not a measurement process. Making Upgrades kits available (or should that be redesign kits) based on having a single speaker and measurements only seems strange to me. Danny clearly knows his stuff and has a well founded reputation. He's well respected in his field. I'm definitely not questioning that
@@haycrossaudio5474 I can appreciate your thought process, but there are more things to consider. Most of these speakers that are sent in are budget level designs. Customers want improvements, they don't want to spend a lot, and they want a fun project. They are not buying a $20,000 speaker. If it were one of my own speakers then I have the luxury of spending a lot of time in development. Mainly we can spend time listening to and A/B comparing drivers before they go into production. That is where some real gains are made that only come through listening. I don't have the luxury with speakers that are sent in. The drivers are what they are. I can also compare various capacitors to hear what type or brand matches best with our drivers. I can try various tweaks with bi-pass caps and make a lot of listening comparisons. I have that kind of time with our designs. Luckily I can take that experience and put it into other speakers. For instance I know the audible effect of an Aluminum foil capacitor and how it might be okay with a soft dome, but might not match well with an aluminum dome tweeter.... If I did build out and compare ever combination of parts or create slight variations in amplitude to everything we work on then we'd go broke, and/or our customers would never be able to afford the upgrade. Also keep in mind that if I do redesign something it is typically because of problems that need to be addressed. What I see a lot of is driver break up, ringing, phase issues (time related issues), amplitude imbalances, surface or edge reflections, cabinet resonances, etc. Those are all audible problems. Fixing those problems is always an improvement. Other thing, I do all of this redesign work for free. In the end the upgrade cost whatever the parts cost. I fix issues, balance the response, the parts quality goes way up, etc. Compared to what they came in with, win, win, win all over. Improvements in all area. And lastly, most of these speakers never went through any voicing to begin with. No one listened to and tweaked anything. Sometimes they are never even listened to at all other than to make sure it works. Many of them were never and have never been measured before, ever.
As an engineer that can sometimes write things that come across as aloof, arrogant or insensitive, I approve of this video title! And the only modification I would have suggested on that super center speaker is some 3" straights and a multilink rear end.
This was my speaker 🎉🎉🎉. I sold it to the buyer on eBay who wanted the upgrade. Super cool to get it on video.
I have these Golden Ear Center CH speaker and they "had" load of problems. The problem I heard are absolutely problems that Danny found during testing. His crossover design made this a CH that is worthwhile component.. I purchased a different PP tweeter cap just wanted a top of the line cap, which is a cap I can afford. When watching a show and it's difficult to understand nown on Subtitles that a miracle. Great Job
Loving the new editing details :)
Like most center channel speakers, the horizontal dispersion is lackluster - exactly the opposite of what you would want for a center channel. As you mention ...
Another success, I like the meaty tech talk, we stand to learn so much... You are a fantastic resource = thought leader. KUDOS!
Looks like a good job. 3 seats wide on a couch, dispersion wise, is pretty damn respectable for a center channel speaker in a surround sound system. Wonder if he did any measurements with the sock in place? Probably tones down that bump in the tweeter a bit. My old boss met Sandy when he was with Polk in the early eighties at CES, there's a great story I can't tell here involving the two of them, a man purse and a Vegas bathroom attendant.
Since this retails for $2150, this urpgrade is around what sales tax would be.
Another great job I dont now why such wide centre channel speakers with all those drive units are made they all will have the same horizontal axis problems
Been craving a video, this hits the spot.
I'm pretty sure Sandy doesn't design speakers anymore.
Since he founded and owns Golden Ear, he can others working for the company doing the designing work.
That may be true, but this one has his crossover design style written all over it.
When designing a MTM, would it be advantageous to have the lower frequency drivers facing away from the mid-point? Not a severe angle necessarily.
Interesting question. Kind of like a reverse main where you are trying to focus the sound on a specific height, but in reverse to spread the sound.
Just a thought, before you create a new crossover do the drivers have to be "burned/worn" in ?
Would a new driver measure different to a used driver?
Love the videos 👍
Kind regards from Turkey 👍
Burn in will soften the suspension and produce a cleaner spectral decay, but it doesn't change the output levels.
@@dannyrichie9743 thank you Danny, appreciate the reply, regards
I'm curious if the Invisa SPS has better off axis. I'm considering using them for LCR since the wife is requiring in-wall for our next setup. I'd really prefer to continue using your designs but unfortunately in-wall isn't one of your design choices :(
Reminds me of definitive technology center speakers.
Sandy Gross (Big Wig at Golden Ear) was one of the founding partners at Definitive Technology.
Sandy helped create Polk, definitive and goldenear who is now owned by audio quest
I have watched quite a few of your videos with center channels and it seems the larger they are, they tend to have a hole in the frequency response the more you get off access. Makes me ask, is it better to use a book shelf turned on its side, even though it does not look as aesthetically pleasing?
if you turn it on its side - check the vertical off axis response first. If it has a wide dispersion and is symmetrical (up and down), you are probably good to go.
A single woofer and tweeter on its side will have a lobbing error or response issue that is different in one direction than the other.
No, it's not better to have a bookshelf speaker on its side.
Position it upright, normal vertical orientation.
If you're going with a center channel;
Three identical, vertically oriented LCRs across the front.
Was just curious how the new speakers Ron referenced a couple of months ago are coming along? Thanks.
We will be talking about that soon.
Ordinarily I would be the first to say that you aren't pushing products, but why are you putting additional cost tube connectors in the kit when there are no steel parts in the binding post. If it has no steel then you don't have justification for putting in the tube connector, now we have entered the realm of pushing products. It is pointless going through the whole "look it's got steel nuts on it" spiel if your going to replace them anyway.
Besides avoiding steel parts, which hold a residual charge and smear the signal, Danny previously said he prefers binding posts with low mass and high contact area (as long as the posts are strong enough). How it specifically improves the sound, I don't know.
@@BruceCross and I get that, but if you are going to recommend the tube connectors for everything that is not tube connectors, then you are recommending them for everything. I get that he would recommend them for binding posts that have steel nuts or are just generally low quality, but when a speaker has a half decent binding post to begin with then the value proposition of the tube connector is diminished. It is a fair amount of the kit cost for questionably gain.
@@DodgyBrothersEngineering True, it's diminishing returns.
Just because a binding post doesn't have steal parts doesn't mean it's top notch. There is still a clear audible improvement going from a Brass binding post to a solid Copper tube connector, and that audible improvement is well worth the cost.
measurements, please?
Ocd company?
Do you use klippel measuring equipment?
No he doesn't.
Nope, I use a Clio system.
Every manufactured speaker assembly only sounds best housed in Instrument grade plywood surfaced six sides. Density laminations matched applicably to desired pronouncement of caricature depth. It is a thing 🙃 T Y great place great information. side by side if I had to describe it. There's a kinda found wisdom. I mean you could move into seasoned exotic woods They gain resonance with age.Ha. there's no end to it. Which makes it great! Still analog is closest to original progenitor. Modern day audio annunciation units. Are designed around the digital conduit. Commerce design expenditure's preclude natural wood cabinet's augmentations. It can't be equaled. Those pressure measurements won't see it digitally. What we don't know that can help somewhat hurts. But if everyone forgets. Your arguments become fiction?
Have you ever done anything to any vandersteen model 2c speaker's
No.
I love your videos Danny but ALL your Upgrades seem entirely measurement based. How often do you listen to these? In affect your creating a new speaker something of which takes manufacturers ages in the development process. A morning of measurement based crossover designed doesn’t make a speaker. Some of the most enjoyable speakers dont necessarily measure well. As you know as soon as you put them in a room the 1watt, 1 meter parameters go out the window. Ive designed many flat response speakers with good CSD and impedance characteristics but put them in a room and there just not right. Fine tuning is then done by ear. I use measurements all the time but we dont listen to our speakers on a computer screen. I'm fairly sure once you have finished the measurement process on your own designs you listen and tweak, listen again and tweak and finally listen again. If not you'd be designed new speakers every day. This isn't a dig it's just a observation
We actually have spent a significant amount of time listening and comparing each and every part that we use compared to different brands, types, etc. So we have a good baseline as to the audible effects of each and every part. So we know what the audible differences are between a high quality poly cap and an electrolytic cap. We don't have to build it and A/B compare it for every single speaker we work on. The same goes for inductors. We know the audible difference in a small gauge iron core coil versus a large gauge air core. We've made that comparison. We know the effect. No need to make that A/B comparison every single time we design an upgrade. We know we are making an improvement, in what area, and how. We know removing a cheap binding post and replacing it with tube connectors improves clarity every time. It does not change the tonal balance of a speaker or how it interacts in the room. We know that we can replace old PCV jacketed and well oxidized wire with high purity OFC in polyethylene and make a clarity improvement. We know that adding No Rez to a cabinet will damp out resonances. So the upgrades are much more than just measurement based.
Also this notion, "....something of which takes manufacturers ages in the development process", is a myth. Most speakers in these price points are designed to have a reasonable response and then they pick parts based on price. There is no tuning process to the development.
Another thing to keep in mind. How a speaker measures isn't a measurement of how it sounds. It is a measurement of how accurate it is. How it really sounds has just as much to do with the things we don't measure.
@@dannyrichie9743 Absolutely agree with your comment regarding component quality. That's just a given. We all know this. Getting steel / iron based parts out of the signal path, using better quality capacitors, copper air core inductors instead of iron core thin gauge crap is a clear upgrade and we all know why mass produced speakers use cheap parts. My question didn't relate to parts quality. It related to listening to these speakers after your redesign. You are redesigning these speakers. Your 9 times out of 10 not just replacing parts like for like value wise with better components. Your designing a completely new crossover. The only thing set in stone us the drivers used and the cabinets there installed in. We listen to speakers. We don't watch them on a screen and convince ourselves that because they measure well they must sound good. Measurements are purely a indicator as to how accurate they are to the source and not a representation of how they sound. So you have to listen to them and then revisit the design. Are you telling me your finished speaker kits were not evolved and tweaked after many hours of listening? Surely it wasn't a case of building cabinets for your drivers and a day of crossover design to then say 'done?
In watching other videos produced by Danny I've noticed that a speaker might 'measure' cleanly but the poor quality of the components contribute to a muddy or lackluster sound quality. I've watched videos where Danny told all of us how much he listens to the speakers so he could tell the difference that quality components make in the richness and clarity of the sound reproduction.
Just my 0.02 cents worth and I'm a nobody in the world of high end audio. Be well and stay happy!
@@BigHeinen Better components will definitely improve things. It's always a cost issue with mass produced speakers. That's why cheap components are used. My question relates the the complete redesign of the crossover and not just a parts upgrade. GR Research redesign crossovers for a lot of speakers. This redesign is based around measurements which is a big part of the story but the final voicing is a listening process not a measurement process. Making Upgrades kits available (or should that be redesign kits) based on having a single speaker and measurements only seems strange to me. Danny clearly knows his stuff and has a well founded reputation. He's well respected in his field. I'm definitely not questioning that
@@haycrossaudio5474 I can appreciate your thought process, but there are more things to consider. Most of these speakers that are sent in are budget level designs. Customers want improvements, they don't want to spend a lot, and they want a fun project. They are not buying a $20,000 speaker.
If it were one of my own speakers then I have the luxury of spending a lot of time in development. Mainly we can spend time listening to and A/B comparing drivers before they go into production. That is where some real gains are made that only come through listening. I don't have the luxury with speakers that are sent in. The drivers are what they are. I can also compare various capacitors to hear what type or brand matches best with our drivers. I can try various tweaks with bi-pass caps and make a lot of listening comparisons. I have that kind of time with our designs.
Luckily I can take that experience and put it into other speakers. For instance I know the audible effect of an Aluminum foil capacitor and how it might be okay with a soft dome, but might not match well with an aluminum dome tweeter....
If I did build out and compare ever combination of parts or create slight variations in amplitude to everything we work on then we'd go broke, and/or our customers would never be able to afford the upgrade.
Also keep in mind that if I do redesign something it is typically because of problems that need to be addressed. What I see a lot of is driver break up, ringing, phase issues (time related issues), amplitude imbalances, surface or edge reflections, cabinet resonances, etc. Those are all audible problems. Fixing those problems is always an improvement.
Other thing, I do all of this redesign work for free. In the end the upgrade cost whatever the parts cost. I fix issues, balance the response, the parts quality goes way up, etc. Compared to what they came in with, win, win, win all over. Improvements in all area.
And lastly, most of these speakers never went through any voicing to begin with. No one listened to and tweaked anything. Sometimes they are never even listened to at all other than to make sure it works. Many of them were never and have never been measured before, ever.
Nailing it again Danny !
As an engineer that can sometimes write things that come across as aloof, arrogant or insensitive, I approve of this video title! And the only modification I would have suggested on that super center speaker is some 3" straights and a multilink rear end.