Need for high quality powered center

No thank you.

Why the need for active speaker in the center? I power my center from the HT reciever like most people and am pretty happy.

@carlsbad2 - Sir, this is an audiophile forum and good enough is not actually good enough! 😁

Now to answer why active instead of passive, if you have followed me at all you know I don’t push one over the other necessarily.

There were a number of features I realized I could combine into making a really superior center if I went with an active, DSP based solution. By choosing the driver sizes, crossover points, and delay to make a coherent whole I’ve achieved a "virtual point-source" center channel that behaves 95% like a true point source, with none of the drawbacks inherent AND gain control over the EQ of the center channel which my current receiver wont’ let me.

I not only want to try this as my center but if it works as I hope I may end up replacing all of my front speakers with the same "center" channel.

Not to mention, well, tons of low distortion, high output capabilities.

It looks great!  I love that you use a tweeter over a dedicated midrange as almost all the best centers do IMHO.  I’m no speaker designer, but the best center speakers I’ve ever heard have used that configuration.  If you design a passive version you’ll likely expand your potential market quite a bit.  Just a thought FWIW. 

@erik_squires 

When you listen to Frank Sinatra via atmos or an upmixer coming through that ACTIVE center channel you will never look back, SUBLIME! 

Did you know that Frank used a center channel in 3 channel stereo at home?

It looks great!

Thanks @soix

I love that you use a tweeter over a dedicated midrange as almost all the best centers do IMHO. I’m no speaker designer, but the best center speakers I’ve ever heard have used that configuration.

There are some physical realities about using a dedicated midrange that is nearly impossible to overcome any other way. A super wide listening angle, low distortion and wide dynamic range are all made possible thanks to the mid. True for all speakers really. What we have to have though is speaker height to make it work.

If you design a passive version you’ll likely expand your potential market quite a bit. Just a thought FWIW.

The market is saturated with good passive 3-way center channels. This design is not translatable to a passive system in the same box. The VPS (virtual point-source) magic won’t work without an excess number of passive components, or a different cabinet altogether.

I could put these components into the same box with a passive crossover but it won’t be excellent, it will be merely good.

Comparable active designs would be from ATC and Legacy, around $12,000 to $20,000 each.

Where I have diverged significantly from their intended use is I never attempted to make a full-range center. My center has always been intended for use with a subwoofer and that lets me build a much smaller cabinet, with plenty of dynamicrange, around 118 dB at 1 meter, and with less distortion in the intended range, and the ability to fix the usual speaker-on-a-shelf bass issues in the amp.

I’m pretty sure ATC and Legacy are making their active centers for those with dedicated home theaters or studios, a luxury I don’t have. I may not have the floor space but I want the same or better level of performance. That’s why I feel like my design is a bespoke answer for me.

It’s all a package deal with VPS, including much lower distortion than you’d get from a 2-way or co-axial designs.