A little help please.
|
Silver Member Username: ShouderWisconsin Post Number: 134 Registered: Dec-03 | Well, I hate to say it but I feel a little out of place over on this side of the forum. Personality Im a car audio guy, but being a college student I dont have the funds to put into my home that I did for my car. I need a 5.1 setup that has a powered sub. I already have the reciever that I plan on using. I still like great quality but in this case it has to be at a low price, around $200-300(ebay prices). So far the best system that I found that was in that price range was Infinity's Tss-450. However, correct me if im wrong but I believe they have metallic tweeters which i think will be too bright for me. Im looking for something a little more neutral like dynaudio's speakers. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 173 Registered: Jul-05 | I would recommend the Athena Micra 6 ($299, Best Buy) or the Cambridge Soundworks Movieworks 58 ($240, ebay). Not exactly top of the line, but its better than a Durabrand setup from Walmart. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1525 Registered: Mar-05 | Don't know what kind of gear you have in your car, but if $200-300 is your budget for the whole 5.1 shebang and you plan to use your home system for music listening too, you will probably be disappointed. If that was absolutely all I could spend, I'd just buy a really good set of headphones. Or just buy a half-decent pair of speakers (see Athena AS-B2s, $150/pair from audioadvisor.com) and a budget sub (Dayton 10" sub from partsexpress.com, about $150 shipped). The Athena Micra would be sort of OK if you're not doing much music listening though. Also look at fluance.com they have really cheap speakers but I doubt you're going to get anything very "neutral" at that price point. What's the receiver? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 174 Registered: Jul-05 | Really it depends on how high a standards you have, and what tradeoffs youre willing to take versus benefits. Even at that low price, the average joe can be satisfied. |
|
Silver Member Username: ShouderWisconsin Post Number: 135 Registered: Dec-03 | Well, really this is just a "get by for now" system, until I can spend the time and money, like I have on my car, on home theater So I guess what im truly looking for is something decent that will tide me over for a year or two or three (or 4). But maybe you have a point Edster922, and just build the system slowly. My current recevier is a sony STR-DE885 Thankyou for your help and suggestions, everyone. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1536 Registered: Mar-05 | Well if you plan to hang on to that Sony receiver then the 2 Athena B2s plus Dayton sub should be fine. Better to have a decent 2.1 system than a bad 5.1 Eventually though you'll want to get a better receiver, that's what I'd do first instead of getting better speakers above the B2s. |
|
Silver Member Username: Virus5877West Lafayette, Indiana USA Post Number: 173 Registered: Apr-05 | Eddie's right, spend the money on a 2.1 setup with 2 decent bookshelves and a budget sub, you can always fill the rest of the 5.1 later as you save money (or do what I did and take student loans to keep jamming with rotel and B&W!) |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 195 Registered: Mar-04 | when i take the plunge and convert to magnepans... you can buy my imaging champ superzero 5 channel system cheap. LOL i want the lighning fast transients and seamless unboxy midrange that planars offer. look into an NAD amp and maggies. NAD is warm sounding and can handle 4 ohms that maggies need. i've regularly seen MMGs selling for about $250 on ebay and they only sell for $500 NEW. besides... as true dipoles... they are the ideal surround speakers. i'd probably already own MMGs if they wouldn't cause my onkyo (terrified of 4 ohm loads) reciever to blow up. LOL |
|
Silver Member Username: ShouderWisconsin Post Number: 140 Registered: Dec-03 | Well a new amp would have to wait till later. However, i am thinkin now that im also going to go ahead a get a center too, if i can find something good for 150 or less. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1566 Registered: Mar-05 | Here's a very cheap center: http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=ATHASC1&product_name=Aud ition%20AS-C1%20Center%20Channel%20Speaker or the newer, supposedly improved version of it: http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=ATHASC1%2E2&product_name =Audition%20C1%2E2%20Center%20Channel%20-%20Black If you watch a lot of TV and movies, I think an extra $80 is well worth it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1959 Registered: Jan-05 | I agree with a lot of the sentiments here for those on a tight budget. It's better to build gradually and buy quality, than to jump in head first, and buy junk that will "all" be replaced. As for dipoles for surrounds??? No way, not for home theater. Get something that will radiate directly to your main listening position. If you have rows of theater seating...Ok, fine...then get the dipole speakers. Otherwise, I cant stand them. |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 224 Registered: Mar-04 | the idea behind dipoles for surrounds is that when you listen to them EDGEWISE the front and back waves cancel each other out making it harder to localize sounds. that's what you want from your surround channel. if, say, a motorcylce zooms by in your soundtrack, you don't want it to jump from your fronts to your surrounds and to STAY at exactly left or right. you want it to SMOOTHLY move from front to back and to not be able to precisely localize it. how often do you hear sounds that are always either in front of you or exactly left or right of you? dipoles let sounds sound like they could be coming from in front of your surrounds OR behind them. when you can'r precisely localize a sound, it has more depth. ideally, one would want a dozen or so discrete surround channels that would let you properly localize a sound 360 degrees around you. 5.1 is the only game in town for the moment unless you add back speakers which are really just extra surrounds for more fill. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1978 Registered: Jan-05 | I think dipoles have a different effect. Why dont you take your center channel speaker, and aim it away from your primary seating position and compare how it sounds to when it was aimed direct .....then you'll know what I'm talking about. I do agree with your 7.1 comment though because adding those back speakers makes a nice improvement in the movie watching experience and greatly enhances the soundfield. Plus....during the right moments in movies, they can make you turn your head or jump out of your seat unlike surrounds could ever do. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 588 Registered: Oct-04 | "Why dont you take your center channel speaker, and aim it away from your primary seating position and compare how it sounds to when it was aimed direct .....then you'll know what I'm talking about." A centre channel's "job" is completely different from the surrounds. A centre channel centres the dialogue to the picture. The point is to localize the sound so that the dialogue sounds like it is coming from the characters on screen. Surrounds attempt to do the opposite. Often they playback background noise which you don't want to be localized. I think you're confusing di-pole speakers to something like Bose that spews sound all over the room. Dipoles envelop the listener creating a 360 degree soundstage more effectively. If you had them you would then throw those Bose speakers in the trash where they belong. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1994 Registered: Jan-05 | At that rate, you might as well turn them around to face the wall and enjoy. |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 231 Registered: Mar-04 | thanks for being a witness kano. LOL you WANT to localize your front channels. you want direct radiation. that's what ties your image to the screen. you want just the OPPOSITE from surrounds. paul... why do you think manufacturers DELIBERATELY make DIPOLE speakers and market them as surrounds. maybe you like EVERY surround sound at exactly left or right but i sure as heck wouldn't. surround sounds are supposed to SURROUND YOU, not flank you. that's why there are now 7.1 recievers... so you can add rear speakers for a larger, more diffuse surround field and back fill. ideally, surround sound should totally surround you including the back. dipoles give you the best illusion of that by being harder to localize. there's a reason that RESPECTED audio manufacturers have made $1000 or more dipoles (B&W!) to be used as surrounds. |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 232 Registered: Mar-04 | here... check this B&W speaker out which retails for $3000 a pair, and then go tell B&W what idiots they are for building speakers that are DESIGNED to make surrounds harder to localize. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 2002 Registered: Jan-05 | Just because there are expensive dipoles selling only means there are fools willing to buy them and part with their money for them. For example, just because a manufacture says their snake-oil soaked $500 banana plugs are extra high spaceaged quality, are you going to blindly plunk that kind of money down because THEY want to sell them??? Are you one of those individuals who would spend $200/ft on a piece of copper wire because you're lulled by the claims of 'super-duper space-age' copper, and because manufacturers want to sell them to you? Cant you see that there is plenty of garbage selling for the only reason individuals are naive enough to plunk their money?? Are you one of those who would buy anything for the sake of it being expensive?? Heck, if it's expensive, it must be better?? If that's the case, I have some quality oceanfront property that I would like to sell you in the middle of Arizona  Heck, I'll even sell it for half the price of what oceanfront property goes for in southern Cal, just because you're a swell guy. Since you're so nice, I'll also sell you a bottle of my famous elixer that will cure all of your ills. It's a real bargain at $500 per bottle. Heck, there are plenty of Dipole front speakers selling too, and based on your previous comments, you disagree with that design, right?? |
|
Silver Member Username: AudioholicPost Number: 112 Registered: Apr-05 | Paul.....you should take your meds |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 601 Registered: Oct-04 | http://www.definitivetech.com/loudspeakers/powertower/powertower.html#7000sc I think Di-Pole fronts attempt to do something completely different than surround di-poles do. I personally have no idea what that is, but would be thankfull to anyone that could tell me. |
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