PRO-10 vs SHO-10's???

[engtaz]

What are the differences between the Pro 10 and the Show 10's??? All I know is that the voicing is more forward on the Show 10's. Is appearance the same? What frequencies differences?

[Nfrasotoo]

What are the differences between the Pro 10 and the Show 10's??? All I know is that the voicing is more forward on the Show 10's. Is appearance the same? What frequencies differences?

From what I gather, SHO stands for super high output- and they provide ~3dB more output.

The difference of course comes from the 10" woofer used, so naturally the appearance will differ because of that. The SHO woofer looks like an Eminence Delta-10A (just guessing, I could be wrong) and has that sexy blue/green in it (I think):



Here's a pic of the PRO-10 woofer I took:



Also, the PRO-10s should lean slightly warm from neutral (some have said more musical) and the SHO-10s neutral or slightly bright from neutral (though definitely not harsh/fatiguing) resulting in a more forward sound and more pronounced vocals for HT use.

That's what I know, I'm sure others can fill in the gaps. Oh and check the review sub-forum for MKtheater's review of the SHOs and some pictures as well!

[One4yu2c]

Side note: Nice close-up shot, LilGator.

[tesseract]

What are the differences between the Pro 10 and the Show 10's??? All I know is that the voicing is more forward on the Show 10's. Is appearance the same? What frequencies differences?

The PRO-10 adds a few db's between 100 - 200hz, the "power band".

It depends on what your room is like and what the application will be. If you have a large, well treated room, the SHO-10 will probably fit the bill.

If you have a smaller room with sparse furnishings and a lot of reflective surfaces, the PRO-10 could be more to your liking.

As I am a 2 channel music mostly guy in a smallish room with light acoustical treatment, I am going to go with the PRO-10.

Another facet of the two offerings... you can go PRO-10 for mains and have a SHO-10 center for increased dialog clarity. Or any combination of the two, really!

There is no "better" speaker, there are choices.

LilGator, that is a nice shot of the PRO-10 woofer.

[goonstopher]

Is that a typo? You said the pro adds a few db in bass isn't it sho?

[Nfrasotoo]

Side note: Nice close-up shot, LilGator.

There is no "better" speaker, there are choices.

LilGator, that is a nice shot of the PRO-10 woofer.

Thanks guys, and good point, tesseract!

Is that a typo? You said the pro adds a few db in bass isn't it sho?

He's referring to the response, not the output. That's part of what gives the PRO-10 the "warmth".

[HopefulFred]

The PRO-10 adds a few db's between 100 - 200hz, the "power band".

It depends on what your room is like and what the application will be. If you have a large, well treated room, the SHO-10 will probably fit the bill.

If you have a smaller room with sparse furnishings and a lot of reflective surfaces, the PRO-10 could be more to your liking.

As I am a 2 channel music mostly guy in a smallish room with light acoustical treatment, I am going to go with the PRO-10.

Another facet of the two offerings... you can go PRO-10 for mains and have a SHO-10 center for increased dialog clarity. Or any combination of the two, really!

There is no "better" speaker, there are choices.

So, from reading a bunch (as much as there is, at the moment) about people's reviews, and the differences... it seems to me that the extra few dB you get in the 100-200Hz range from the PRO-10 can lead to slightly muddy dialog, compared to the SHO-10. Certainly, this has a lot to do with folks' rooms and EQ as well, but all else constant, this seems to perhaps be an emerging pattern (backed by reasonable inference and experienced observation?) [I'd love to hear any contradictions to these inferences and conclusions]

If that's so, and the SHO-10 is the better choice for many interested in dialog intelligibility, would you recommend 2 SHO-10's for someone forced to work with a phantom center?

[tesseract]

So, from reading a bunch (as much as there is, at the moment) about people's reviews, and the differences... it seems to me that the extra few dB you get in the 100-200Hz range from the PRO-10 can lead to slightly muddy dialog, compared to the SHO-10. Certainly, this has a lot to do with folks' rooms and EQ as well, but all else constant, this seems to perhaps be an emerging pattern (backed by reasonable inference and experienced observation?) [I'd love to hear any contradictions to these inferences and conclusions]

I am not sure that this is a fair assumption, let alone an emerging pattern. I'll be able to contribute more info once the PRO-10's are in my 2 channel system. I also use my system for movies, and manually tune, so EQ issues will not be happening here.

[Ray3]

So, from reading a bunch (as much as there is, at the moment) about people's reviews, and the differences... it seems to me that the extra few dB you get in the 100-200Hz range from the PRO-10 can lead to slightly muddy dialog, compared to the SHO-10. Certainly, this has a lot to do with folks' rooms and EQ as well, but all else constant, this seems to perhaps be an emerging pattern (backed by reasonable inference and experienced observation?) [I'd love to hear any contradictions to these inferences and conclusions]

If that's so, and the SHO-10 is the better choice for many interested in dialog intelligibility, would you recommend 2 SHO-10's for someone forced to work with a phantom center?

Actually, this is an incorrect assumption.

The PRO-10 absolutely does NOT have "muddy" dialog. The dialog delivered is crisp, clear and articulate. In some few instances (clearly not a pattern), the room + Audyssey or MCACC combination results in settings for the center that doesn't provide forceful delivery.

The above, BTW, is one of the reasons I don't use Audyssey or MCACC. I much prefer an SPL meter and the ability to make individual, small adjustments (volume/crossover) to fine tune the audio. Audyssey or MCACC don't provide that kind of flexibility. Also, the auto EQ stuff is ROOM correction capability, not speaker correction. Having said that, some folks prefer Audyssey or MCACC. YMMV.

The "few extra dB you get in the 100-200Hz range" really has little to do with what you are describing; its about what is the room and auto EQ.

This type of speaker also has controlled directivity and if dialog is not as forceful as some might prefer, manually adding 2dB-4dB to the center is an effective and acceptable solution.

As far as your other two questions, the SHO-10s are a bit more neutral and forward and dialog will be a tad better. Two PRO-10s for L/C and a SHO-10 center is the setup I will be getting for my theater. I will be using this setup for demos to illustrate the difference between the two. I would do just as well to have a PRO center running 2dB-4dB hot.

As far as a phantom center is concerned, in general, there are plusses and minuses that you can explore to see what gets your attention. However, most speakers don't manifest the controlled directivity that the PRO/SHOs do. So in reading the plusses and minuses of phantom centers, keep in mind that controlled directivity is going to be less effective for this use, in general, except for the person sitting in the sweet spot.

Hope the information is helpful. :sly:

[goonstopher]

Ray I may be wrong but doesnt MCACC offer full customization and manual eq if desired in its advanced menu?

I was considering getting an AVR with MCACC and using REW to fine tune it.

[craigsub]

Ray I may be wrong but doesnt MCACC offer full customization and manual eq if desired in its advanced menu?

I was considering getting an AVR with MCACC and using REW to fine tune it.

Hey Goonstopher, this time you are RIGHT ! :rock:

[goonstopher]

Hey Goonstopher, this time you are RIGHT ! :rock:

You say enough crap and eventually something sticks

I am in the process of getting a pioneer sc-25 for a screaming deal that seems too good to be true but the seller has great feedback on a-gon so I am taking a chance. Looks like my one thing I swore I would never change (my onkyo 805) might be getting changed. Will only cost me like $180 difference so I can't turn it down and figure MCACC will work better with sho or pro's

[Mike_TX]

Actually, this is an incorrect assumption.

The PRO-10 absolutely does NOT have "muddy" dialog. The dialog delivered is crisp, clear and articulate. In some few instances (clearly not a pattern), the room + Audyssey or MCACC combination results in settings for the center that doesn't provide forceful delivery.

The above, BTW, is one of the reasons I don't use Audyssey or MCACC. I much prefer an SPL meter and the ability to make individual, small adjustments (volume/crossover) to fine tune the audio. Audyssey or MCACC don't provide that kind of flexibility. Also, the auto EQ stuff is ROOM correction capability, not speaker correction. Having said that, some folks prefer Audyssey or MCACC. YMMV.

The "few extra dB you get in the 100-200Hz range" really has little to do with what you are describing; its about what is the room and auto EQ.

This type of speaker also has controlled directivity and if dialog is not as forceful as some might prefer, manually adding 2dB-4dB to the center is an effective and acceptable solution.

As far as your other two questions, the SHO-10s are a bit more neutral and forward and dialog will be a tad better. Two PRO-10s for L/C and a SHO-10 center is the setup I will be getting for my theater. I will be using this setup for demos to illustrate the difference between the two. I would do just as well to have a PRO center running 2dB-4dB hot.

As far as a phantom center is concerned, in general, there are plusses and minuses that you can explore to see what gets your attention. However, most speakers don't manifest the controlled directivity that the PRO/SHOs do. So in reading the plusses and minuses of phantom centers, keep in mind that controlled directivity is going to be less effective for this use, in general, except for the person sitting in the sweet spot.

Hope the information is helpful. :sly:

Do we have FR curves superimposed on a graph of both speakers?
(on/off axis)
I think that would get around all of this verbage and let people see what the FR graphs look like.
Maybe it is already on the site somewhere and I forgot/missed it.

Mike

[HopefulFred]

Thanks Ray, that's what I wanted to hear!

I'm really just getting things set up with my old speakers still, and setting about learning to use MCACC, so hopefully I'll be able to make it work for me once I get proper speakers - can't decide which yet, but I have a strong feeling they'll be from CHT.

Can we go back to the comments from earlier about a treated room vs untreated, or small vs large room? How's that difference play out?

Also, I'm with Mike - I'd love to see some on- and off-axis plots if anyone has them.

[Ray3]

Ray I may be wrong but doesnt MCACC offer full customization and manual eq if desired in its advanced menu?

I was considering getting an AVR with MCACC and using REW to fine tune it.

Yep, Chris - you are correct (and I bet you don't hear THAT very often!!!) :whoopie: - I was in a hurry when posting. I still don't like the auto EQ messing with settings and I have to do a treasure hunt to find out what its done.

Also, I wanted to address the use of the word "muddy". These speaks are the polar opposite of that word and I felt that descriptor needed to be corrected.

Fred (and Mike), we'll probably see some of that techno stuff over time as more folks get the PRO / SHOs. Frankly, I think the users need to tell the story (good, bad, indifferent - as long as its honest). Beyond some of the basic stuff, I am not much of a quant guy. I probably lean to 70% subjective on user reviews and then try to let my ears be the tie breaker. Especially when my 63 year old ears aren't the same as John Doe's 25 year old ears, my room is uniquely different than anyone else's and the treatments, furniture, etc. in the room are different.

Anyhow, I 'm rambling. We hope to accomplish the following - outstanding components and design (check), good specs (check), great price (check), adequate quant info (probably coming sooner rather than later) and user experience that indicate the product is better than average (check). If we can drop all of that in the mixer and pour out a really good audio experience, we're gonna make some folks feel pretty good about their home theater. Early indications are that we're directionally correct on this stuff so far.

OK - I'll stop now! :whoopie: