file Question for Sandy, re Invisa MPX design

  • ktoolsie's Avatar Offline school
  • New Member
  • New Member
    • Posts: 16
    • Thank you received: 14
  • arrow_drop_downMore arrow_drop_upLess
ktoolsie Posted 3 years 10 months ago
#25069
Hi Sandy,

2 questions:

1. Could you elaborate on the reasons why you chose a multi-polar design for your MPX surrounds?

It would seem that as the tweeter is mounted conventionally, the MPX would act as a direct radiator for the most directional HF sounds, with some enhanced spaciousness (i.e. less directional) for the MF sounds.

2. In a conventional rectangular room, using a 7.1.2 or 7.1.4 Atmos set-up, with 2 rows of seating. Where would you recommend placing Invisa MPXs, fulfilling the L&R Surround speaker roles? Would you recommendation vary, dependent on which row is the "primary" seating position? Currently the back (2nd). row is my primary seating position, but since moving to Atmos, I am considering switching this to the front row.

My current (bipolar) L&R surround speakers are positioned, exactly at the sides of the primary back row position. This places them a few feet behind the front row, and works well apart from the somewhat reduced SPL level at the front row.

If I change to a front row as the primary seating position, should I put the MPXs where my current L&R Surround speakers are (level with the back row) and just rerun Audyssey to correct SPL levels for the new primary position. Or should I really move the speakers to be in-line with the front row, which would put them forward of the 2nd row.

Many Thanks,

Kurt

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Moderator's Avatar Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
    • Posts: 3219
    • Thank you received: 3403
    • Karma: 19
  • arrow_drop_downMore arrow_drop_upLess
Moderator Posted 3 years 10 months ago
#25070
Hi,

1) Improved dispersion of the bass/midrange to match the wide horizontal dispersion of the HVFR tweeter. They are a direct radiator.

2) Surrounds in a 7.1.x go on the side, presumably behind the last row of seats at ear level. We do suggest 5.1.4 rather than 7.1.2, in which case placing them on the back wall works great.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ktoolsie

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • ktoolsie's Avatar Offline school
  • New Member
  • New Member
    • Posts: 16
    • Thank you received: 14
  • arrow_drop_downMore arrow_drop_upLess
ktoolsie Posted 3 years 10 months ago
#25082
I'm using 7.1.2 rather than 5.1.4, simply because my room was prewired for 7.1, before the words "Dolby" and "Atmos" were ever mentioned together.

It was a pain to run wires through the enclosed ceiling space for my 2 Atmos speakers (Invisa 650s) and I'm not yet ready to do it again for 2 additional ones. I'm sure down the road I'll end up with 7.2.4, but that will require a new processor or receiver, as my current one will only handle a total of 9 channels, plus the 2 subs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • ktoolsie's Avatar Offline school
  • New Member
  • New Member
    • Posts: 16
    • Thank you received: 14
  • arrow_drop_downMore arrow_drop_upLess
ktoolsie Posted 3 years 10 months ago
#25084
Sandy, what would be your thoughts on using a pair or MPXs wired in parallel for each of the L and R side-surrounds (4 MPXs in total just for the L&R side surrounds)? This would result in 6 MPXs in total once the Rear surrounds are added in.

The advantage is that each of my 2 rows would have its own side pair of side-surround situated a the side as recommended by Dolby in a 7.1 set-up, with the right time delay and SPL level for each row (similar spacing between row and wall for each row). The downside is possible comb-filtering effects causing uneven frequency response, although this is potentially correctable using Audyssey or some other "room-correction" software.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Moderator's Avatar Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
    • Posts: 3219
    • Thank you received: 3403
    • Karma: 19
  • arrow_drop_downMore arrow_drop_upLess
Moderator Posted 3 years 10 months ago
#25086
Not recommended, for multiple reasons. And, if the room is really that big to need multiple surround AND rear speakers you should also have more amplification channels to match. And you also probably would need a more sophisticated processor capable of assigning multiple surround channels for Atmos playback.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • The Jay's Avatar Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
    • Posts: 24
    • Thank you received: 33
  • arrow_drop_downMore arrow_drop_upLess
The Jay Posted 5 months 3 weeks ago
#30720
Wait a second…sorry to resurrect an old thread but this made me stop and go “oh craaaapp….”

I’m almost finished my room and did just that. I built in wall side surround backer boxes out of mdf for both rows of seating. I haven’t installed the speakers yet, but the boxes are drywalled already, wired and waiting. I did buy all the MPXs though.

I wanted to have the option to switch between using one pair, the other, or both.

What is so bad about this setup?

The rest of the system has another pair of mpxs for the rear, 4 htr7000s up top and the references for LCR.
Upstairs: SuperCinema 3 (SVS SB-2000 though), Denon AVR E-400
Downstairs: Triton 2+, SCXXL, MPX's on the sides, HTR's up top, rears ?? Marantz SR7010, PB-2000

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Moderator
menu
close
Menu
person_outline
arrow_back
You are here: Home Forum Support Invisa Series Question for Sandy, re Invisa MPX design