I have a Yamaha HTR 6160 reciever, an old sub i plan to replace, and some Bose 301 series 3s that were given to me. I plan to replace the boses very soon.
I am mostly interested in HT, I play a lot of video games too and good sound in games makes them so much better.
I've been looking at some bookselfs to gradually build up a 7.1 system, and gradually replace my boses, so I can shove them in the bedroom.
The two I am most interested right now that happen to fall into my price range are the Energy c-200s and the Polk rti4. They are the exact same price.
I have listened to both, on a Yamaha HTR 6190 and the energy's seem to have more balls. I looked at the specs however, and the frequency response of the polks, looks on paper to be superior. The polks say 50hz - 27 khz, the Energys say 48hz - 20 khz.
The Energys have a 61/2 inch woofer, and the polks is 5 1/4.
The Energys seem to sound better, but I was wondering if I was going to miss out on some highs with them? I heard that the human ear is only capable of hearing 20khz and by 30 years old you're lucky to hear 18 khz. So are these 7 khz of highs going to make a difference in my overall HT experience?
Also, the polks components seem to be made with softer materials, polymer,and silk. Does this make them more likely to have distortion issues over the energy's built with: aluminum tweeter, and fiberglass woofer?
I am leaning towards the energy's on this, and if I get them, I plan to build my setup all in c series because it seems to be the best bang for my buck in my price range.
I've also looked into some beta infinity speakers, but unfortunately they are a little too pricy. The one's I want anway.
In my DIRECT experience, the C series Energy speakers are fantastic for HT. I wouldn't rely on them for outstanding 2 channel performance. Although for 99% of the world a pair of C-100s with an 8.3 subwoofer is world-class 2 channel. Before I assembled my Naim system, I would have been more than pleased with that set-up. Now I am spoiled....
But for HT the Energy's are perfect for me.
I have not heard the 200, but I do have c-100 fronts, a C-C100 center, and C-50 surrounds. With an 8.3 Sub. All playing from a fairly inexpensive 5.1 Yamaha (HTR-5960).
I have heard VERY expensive Gallo/Arcam 7.1 systems that don't better my kit by much.
If I would make ANY change, I would possibly exchange the sub for the 10.3 or 12.3
But I am very pleased with the performance of the 8.3
My local dealer for Energy has played me a few scenes from Master and Commander on his different kits in his showroom.
I have never seen the movie actually. So rented it last weekend to see how those scenes sound on my kit. It was absolutely enveloping. The $6000 kit I heard the same scenes on at the dealer was in no way better than mine. Except for one area. The sub. He had a $2800 subwoofer on that kit. Mine was $400 i believe. His extended a little lower with more brute force.
My final ramble, and last piece of advice is to go with a 5.1 set-up. Forget the extra rear channels, and spend the money elsewhere. Regardless of whether your Receiver is 7.1 or 876.1!! 5.1 is fine and will be with us for a long while. TV programming in unlikely to go beyond Dolby Digital for a bit. And 99% of DVDs are similar.
I agree about the 5.1 thing for tv ( I have hd cable by the way and a 46 inch toshiba lcd 1080p Tv.) ... But I also have an hd dvd player which supports true hd and dts hd and so does my reciever. I also plan to get blue ray.
My hd cable is hooked up with fiber optic, and so is my Xbox 360 which I had to by the fiber optic adapter for because it's not the Elite version. So I am getting dolby digital there, but my hd dvd is hooked up via HDMI. So I figured why not start building the 7.1 actually 7.2 up since I plan to have 2 subwoofers. But you're right for most stuff 5.1 is the way to go.
As far as the Energy speakers, I think I will eventually get the c-500's for fronts and bump the 200s to surround position if I go that way.
The Energy cinema speakers are pretty good, and are easy to drive, which matters. Easy on the price, too. I am pretty sure that a 2800$ JLAudio 13 sub would add more than a bit to a 400$ sub, but thats another matter.
Pat thanks, but I just bought the 200s for $200 new. I thought it was a good deal so I just grabbed them.
I saw a cc-50 center channel for $99 new, Im actually not sure if I should wait and get the cc-100 or just grab the 50 because it's so cheap and will do me for now.
I wish the c- series made bigger center channels though so I could match them too, but oh well.
Hey pat, I gave up on the c-500s because I found the 300's for $200. So now I have the c-300s for fronts, c-200's surrounds, and I am not going to go for the rears right now, I'l just stick to5.1
I also grabbed the cc-50 because I got it on sale for $99 new and I have not seen the cc-100s go much cheaper than $300 yet. I will upgrade to the cc-100 when the price is right.
So my total 5.1 speaker setup (minus a sub) cost me $500 for: Energy c-300s, c-200s, and a cc-50. All new.
Amd by the way, I like my surround speakers at ear level, not above me, so the 200's are better for me.
My bose 301 series 3s are now going into my bedroom with my other reciever and my 32 inch lcd. Those speakers will do for a 2 channel HT bedroom setup.
Sweet!!! I am very happy with my Energy 5.1 set-up.
I would definitely look for a c-c100. I demoed both the centers and really wanted the smaller one as it would fit in front of my tv on the same shelf. But the C-C100 sounded so much better, I had to get it, and a different rack!!!
The C-C100 presents a more correct timbre on voices, i think. Also, it can definitely go lower.
What about the sub??? Any work done there?
FYI, i would recommend one nice sub rather than 2 inferior ones.