satellites

[scape]

any chance on the htm's getting refreshed? possibly with a front or side ported design?
:D

[ironmike86]

Wouldn't that make them bigger? Ports?

[drewface]

it wasn't that long ago that the HTMs got refreshed into the SE family, so i doubt a ported HTM is in the works... that kind of a design change would probably be a completely new model anyways, in my opinion.

[davef]

any chance on the htm's getting refreshed? possibly with a front or side ported design?
:D

Hi Scape,

HTM-200 just recently became the 200 SE. No plans for any other changes at this point. Adding a port would require a larger cabinet in addition to many changes to the woofer itself. As it stands now, the 200 SE is a perfect speaker for someone looking for high performance with size or placement constraints.

[scape]

Hi Scape,

HTM-200 just recently became the 200 SE. No plans for any other changes at this point. Adding a port would require a larger cabinet in addition to many changes to the woofer itself. As it stands now, the 200 SE is a perfect speaker for someone looking for high performance with size or placement constraints.

ahh, thanks for the input. I guess the linearity on the other SE products is so intriguing that I figured a tuned port would help. I think I might go after the htm's anyways, as my satellites are terrible!

[davef]

ahh, thanks for the input. I guess the linearity on the other SE products is so intriguing that I figured a tuned port would help. I think I might go after the htm's anyways, as my satellites are terrible!

Adding a port won't affect linearity, it would simply change the bass response of the speaker. As it stands, the 200 SE work exceptionally well with an 80Hz high-pass filter. I use these as rears in my own home :)

[scape]

Adding a port won't affect linearity, it would simply change the bass response of the speaker. As it stands, the 200 SE work exceptionally well with an 80Hz high-pass filter. I use these as rears in my own home :)

hah, now that's interesting, that's good to hear that you actually use your own designs :) I was going to mention you had posted using 340 center in another thread, a bit humble no? I expected some 7 channel sierra concept :D

[DougMac]

I use these as rears in my own home :)
I use the 200 Classics as my back surrounds. To me, there's already a larger 200 that's ported - it's called the 170 SE!

Doug

[scape]

I use the 200 Classics as my back surrounds. To me, there's already a larger 200 that's ported - it's called the 170 SE!

Doug

haha, I know but it's rear ported which makes it hard for my current living room arrangement. they never think of audioheads when it comes to designing floor plans! all is well though, I think the 200's will be just great, plus I can later move them to the back surrounds.

[davef]

hah, now that's interesting, that's good to hear that you actually use your own designs :) I was going to mention you had posted using 340 center in another thread, a bit humble no? I expected some 7 channel sierra concept :D

The system I have *settled* on in my home is 3 Sierra-1 up front with a pair of 200 SE surrounds. Of course, this changes frequently when I do some critical listening to various new designs or changes -- but I must say that no matter what I audition, I always seem to end up missing my Sierra-1 :)

[scape]

The system I have *settled* on in my home is 3 Sierra-1 up front with a pair of 200 SE surrounds. Of course, this changes frequently when I do some critical listening to various new designs or changes -- but I must say that no matter what I audition, I always seem to end up missing my Sierra-1 :)

hah, I remember reading another sierra owner saying the same thing. you make me jealous, lol. no matter, I am still happy with my setup. I played resident evil last night and jump up in startle, least to say my girlfriend won't let that one go...
I've dabbled with single speaker box designs when I was younger, and actually was going to go the DIY route for my current setup, but the crossover work simply was too complicated to make a weekend project for myself-- and I wanted to stay clear of kits. I figured if I was going to spend hundreds of dollars, I'd spend it on a professionally developed product-- I'm now a happy listener :D
this is a bit off topic, but have you dabbled in strictly digital crossover boards, utilizing a chip? I couldn't find too much on this, but I figured if my AVR can perform simple crossovers per channel then there must be something out there. I'm much more of a software guy and can program in many languages, so I figured with some dedicated hardware I could create a software based crossover which allow some on the spot tweaking. just a thought I had.

[BradJudy]

this is a bit off topic, but have you dabbled in strictly digital crossover boards, utilizing a chip? I couldn't find too much on this, but I figured if my AVR can perform simple crossovers per channel then there must be something out there. I'm much more of a software guy and can program in many languages, so I figured with some dedicated hardware I could create a software based crossover which allow some on the spot tweaking. just a thought I had.

There are multiple speakers that use digital crossovers. Things like the Emerald Physics CS2, which uses an off-the-shelf pro-audio DSP box with custom configuration loaded. A couple of companies put out items using the DEQX product as the digital crossover too.

[scape]

There are multiple speakers that use digital crossovers. Things like the Emerald Physics CS2, which uses an off-the-shelf pro-audio DSP box with custom configuration loaded. A couple of companies put out items using the DEQX product as the digital crossover too.

deqx is expensive, no?

[davef]

[QUOTE=scape;this is a bit off topic, but have you dabbled in strictly digital crossover boards, utilizing a chip? I couldn't find too much on this, but I figured if my AVR can perform simple crossovers per channel then there must be something out there. I'm much more of a software guy and can program in many languages, so I figured with some dedicated hardware I could create a software based crossover which allow some on the spot tweaking. just a thought I had.[/QUOTE]

Yes -- very much so! However, it is not really appropriate for our loudspeakers because should really be active to take full advantage of the benefits. I suspect you mean more of a digital equalization system rather than digital crossover (since you mention tweaking) and with that in mind there are many excellent systems out there that will allow this type of functionality.

[BradJudy]

deqx is expensive, no?

Yes, the DEQX is quite pricey - $3k-$5k for just the DEQX box. This is one of the reason some companies are using the off-the-shelf pro-audio digital crossovers for their products like this. VMPS is showing off a version of their 626 at the RMAF using the same unit that the Emerald Physics CS2 uses. It runs $270 - http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHDCX2496

I heard the Emerald Physics speaker at the last RMAF and it sounded very good, but it runs $3000. The VMPS digital 626 runs about $2000.

Of course, not only are you adding that to the mix, but as DaveF noted, you also need more amplifiers to run in the active configuration.