5 identical speakers in HT setup?
|
| After reading some of the great advice in this forum on receivers I'd appreciate opinions on various speaker setups. I have just bought the H/K 325 (after long consideration of a NAD 742 or 752) and currently have a pair of Mission m71 speakers. In considering my options for the remaining speakers I'll need for a 5.1 set-up, I have been told by reputable local audio dealers and have read in some on-line articles (i.e. http://www.soundstage.com/surrounded/surrounded200307.htm ), that ideally 5 identical speakers is the way to go for the best HT. The story I've heard is that instead of just matching the centre to the fronts, these 3 speakers should be identical and that the only reason for the popular horizontal centre design is that it's easier to fit this speaker design above or below a TV screen. As I have a relatively small TV (34") and don't plan on getting a much larger one anytime soon, I can certainly place a conventional bookcase speaker like the M71 above or below my TV. I'd like to hear the groups opinions on the benefits/disadvantages of going the 5 identical speaker route. I like the sound of my Missions and so I'm considering 3 options: 1. Get 3 more m71 speakers to complete the set. 2. Get a Mission centre channel that will match the m71 fronts and then either m71s or m70s for the surround. 3. Get a Mission centre channel, buy bigger Mission fronts and relegate the m71s to the surround position. I look forward to your comments. |
|
timn8ter | The original intent of the rear surround speakers was to imitate the theater experience where there are speakers running the length of the side walls. With that criteria, the signal going to the rears is strictly for ambiance. These days, some DVD's are created with more discreet sounds going to the rears, however, for the most part it still remains mainly for effects. This leads to the desire to have rear speakers that are omni-directional or at least, less directional than mains. In my case, I designed rear speakers that contain three drivers. One directed at the listening area, two directed at 45 degree angles toward the walls. So, while there is some directionality, there is more reflected sound from them. I find this solution to work well for me. You may see examples of this thinking in retail stores. Mission M7DS actually. |
|
timn8ter | Oh, and about the center channel. You are correct. The only reason for horizontal speakers is that so many people couldn't stand having a vertical speaker on their TV. It's definitely a compromise and a speaker matching your mains is a better solution, if you can handle the way it looks. |
|
John A. | Personally, I would vote for option 3. M71s are great speakers, but small, and will not handle full-range. DTS and DVD-Audio ask for full-range all round. I doubt if many people really approach this ideal. But missing some low frequencies from surrounds is not such a big deal. Going with option 1 means you always need the sub to complement small speakers all round. I find that is not as satisfying as pretending all speakers are large. BTW the center is the one speaker you really need to be shielded. |
|
Hawk | I agree with John A. I have the M71s and fully agree with his comments. While it is theoretically true that the best setup for HT is for five identically matched speakers, this is not true for musical reproduction and I don't like relying solely on the sub for the low bass. If your small satellites cannot produce a satisfying volume at around 100hz, the bass info around that frequency is directional and it won't sound right if your sub is anywhere but in the front by the monitor. I would suggest something like a pair of floorstanding M72s or M73s along with the matching center speaker (I don't remember its model #). Use the M71s for surrounds--they are great in that role. |
|
John Allen | I agree with Hawk, as always. All I would add, after a lot of fiddling around, is that my mixture of sizes of speaker, (large front L and R; medium surrounds; small center) sounds distinctly better to my ears on "all large plus sub" with DTS, NAD's proprietory EARS, and even Prologic. I imagine that would be true, too, for DVD-Audio. In contrast, Dolby Digital sounds better on "all small plus sub" closely followed by "fronts large; others small; no sub". "All large plus sub" with Dolby Digital seems to duplicate the low frequencies on the main channels and the sub, giving an unpleasant bass hump reminiscenct of mega-bass effects on tacky tape players. Speech is intolerable; people sound like a giants with microphones taped to their necks. And yes, you can hear where the sub is, which I don't like. But there is no loss with nice, full-range front speakers; they can easily act small if the receiver tells them to. What you can't get is full-range out of a small speaker. Even if you add an "equalizer" (don't!) or whatever, you will still never get a quart out of a pint pot. So there is no contest, for me. I have to admit I am down on Dolby Digital. It seems like a shoddy compromise, designed ONLY for all-in-one HT set-ups with can-sized satellite speakers and an overworked sub that people like to hear, admire and make a feature of the room. Subs are the opposite of Victorian children, they should be heard and not seen. And when you hear them, you should not know where they are, or know when they kick in. I suppose this complaint could just be my receiver's DD processor, but I imagine it has to meet Dolby's spec to qualify for the badge. DTS 5.1 is better by miles. IMHO. That is my yardstick for sound quality. Your question. Consider. The Mission Pilastro is obviously a wonderful main speaker (25 Hz - 48 kHz), but expensive. If you could run to a pair of those, you would never worry in the slightest that they dwarf the surrounds in every way. There would be only gain, and no loss, from theoretical lack of "balance". No-one with ears would prefer M71s in their place. |
|
timn8ter | This comment may be off topic as it's a bit general and theoretical but, it's interesting that the side speakers in movie theaters are not full range. |
|
John Allen | I think that is on topic. What is their range? Being an audio nerd I notice cinema speakers, and they look and sound big, at least in our town, though I have no details. |
|
bartem | What about 4-6 bookshelf, one center and a sub combo? For example, Athena AS-B2 seems to handle 50Hz+ so not much loss in directional low frequencies. Why does everyone seem to be leaning towards floor standing front speakers? I am asking these because I just got my HK AVR-525 and am trying to match a set of speakers. In one post, Hawk stated that Athena's are too bright. I can live with that  . I didnt get a chance to listen to Athenas but I did try Infinity Primus 50s and Alpha 50s. Primus sounded great and is much cheaper than Alpha. Is it worth the money to get 3-way floor standing ones instead of 2-way ones for ppl with subwoofers? I guess if I am convinced to get floors , I will go with Primuses or Athena AS-F1s. I can get the lower end of the base sound from a subwoofer anyways. (Any comparison between Infinity and Athena is highly appreciated.) And damn, I could not find any Monitor Audio speakers in NY. Any idea on where to find them? Any good store in Manhattan, NY anyone? -phew- |
|
bartem | I just realized I was comparing apples to oranges when comparing Alphas to Primuses(Alphas have different cones than Primuses). But still the question is there: Is it worth the money to get 3-way floor standing ones instead of 2-way ones for ppl with subwoofers? |
|
John A. | For dealers, try http://www.monitoraudiousa.com/dealers/index.html |
|
bartem | I checked that list this morning but one of the two locations had moved out of new york, and the other one looked too small to have a testing room (maybe they do) and was closed for Sunday. The first one which was on Broadway before moving out said they did not carry the speakers and they just ordered them for you (ao convenient!!). I was looking for a place to try them. Correction: Primus 50 should be Primus 250 in my first posting. |
|
timn8ter | According to DTS, the front 5 channels (actually 3 front, 2 front surround)in a cinema are discreet (20-20KHz) and the side surrounds operate above 80Hz. The LFE channel is bandwidth limited to 20-80Hz. Like I said, kinda off topic, maybe. I guess my point is, if your 5 speakers operate to 80 Hz you'll probably be ok in a HT or multi-channel music setting. It doesn't hurt to go lower of course and I still prefer some dispersion out of the rear speakers but that's just my personal preference. |
|
John A. | Thanks, Tim. But I don't think we have "side surrounds", in that sense, in 5.1 Home Theater, do we? DTS at home is great, but ideally requires 5 full-range, plus a sub to render the LFE channel. I am sure very few domestic systems have five full-range speakers, they would cost a lot and require much space. The question is whether one prefers an approximation to that, or goes with 5 small speakers and the sub handling what they can't do - in addition to its own LFE signal. If you were completely free to choose, a lot would depend on room size. Five Mission Pilastros in a small room could be a bit intimidating. With two large speakers at the front, you at least retain the option, and can choose. Even here, very few main speakers go to 20 Hz. But I personally like the sound of DTS on "all large". My tests with the same signal from each channel report differences you would not want in a perfect system, and they mostly go away with "All small + sub". So like many things, each person's prefered compromise may different from that of others. Martin B's advice is correct, ideally you have 5 identical speakers. But there is a trade-off. Getting identical speakers by making them all small may have some disadvantages. Dispersion is another question again, I think. Personally I use old stereo speakers for surrounds, and it gives a good effect. I always like to hear where things are, if possible, that is one one the pleasures. Real ambient sound is what you get in a swimming pool, or the very low-level atmospheric sound in a concert hall, it is all around you, not coming fom any particular direction. True, this in on recordings, too, but it is well reproduced in stereo, for example. You can create ambient sound from focussed and directional sources, but you can never go the other way. So I tend to think dispersion is always a loss. But there are probably trade-offs here, too. |
|
Martin B. | Thanks for all the great advice. Since posting I went out and bought a pair of Mission M73 for the front mains and relegated the M71s to surrounds. I'll add the centre channel next, either a M7C1 or M7C2 from Mission. Sub will have to wait a little while. In my first post I said I had a new H/K AVR325. No longer true. I picked it up in the US and on my way back home in Canada had my car broken into and the receiver stolen. Downside is the deductable on my insurance. Upside is that since I have replacement coverage and the AVR 325 is no longer available anywhere in my city (in fact the Canadian distributor only had a few demo models left) I'm getting a new AVR 430 when they're available later next month. Can hardly wait! |
|
John A. | That sounds you original option 3, Martin. I think it will be the best. Sorry to learn about the car. Do some back when you can hear what you've bought! |
|
Hawk | martin: Hey, that is a new model and we await your full review soon after you get it hooked up and broken in. Looking forward to hearing good things! |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics