Why even the best home theater speaker setups suck horribly
|
chestkicktest | Let's face it, a home theater speaker setup may be fine for movie dialogue and background music, but if you want sheer low, kick-you-in-the-chest massive low (but not subwoofer low) low's, in the 60-200hz range or so, you just aren't going to get it with most offerings today, that are designed for audio/video it seems. Remember those great 70's stereo speakers with the honkin' huge 12 or 15" woofers? THAT is what it is going to take to MOVE SOME AIR , and feel it. Why is it that all I see today are these horrible, small, flimsy front speakers with undersized woofers(where those critical frequencies reside for maximum air movement) ....all we get today is smaller speakers and then add a subwoofer which gets low and muddy, but usually is crossed over to where you miss all the glorious 'kick' of the big 'ol speakers of yesterday. I envision a system with FOUR montrous floor standing speakers , with nothing less than two 12" or 15 " woofers (no sub here, it's not a natural sound that you'd hear in most bands or orchestras, although great for movies)...each set being fed the same, single stereo image ,powered by a high effiency, POWERFUL amp, like a Crown or something. I have heard systems like I'm describing and they simply make you laugh at the home theater surround systems you hear in all the dept. stores afterwards. Obviously, I'm a fanatic of HIGH POWERED, reference quality audio, so if anyone has recommendations for a quad set of speakers that can handle the sound I want,I'd love to hear them...I remember Alesis making a mid-field set of high powered monitors, the Monitor 2's,but they are hard to find... |
|
timn8ter | I'm having trouble getting my mind around your rant. Yes, I recall the "great" speakers of the '70s having been there, doing that. SpeakerLab and Pioneer were all the rage along with guys building there own versions of the Klipsch corner-horn. I remember them being very loud but I also remember sloppy bass, and huge horns to get the dispersion right. Of course you're not going to find good stuff in department stores. That's like trying to find Armani in Walmart. Also, low frequency reproduction should be handled as a separate function of an audio system. See "Getting the Bass Right" at http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt3.pdf Good loudspeaker systems are out there but ususally they're overpriced and sold by egotistical and presumptuous jerks. The true geniuses of audio (Seigfried Linkwitz for example) perform research and sell plans but major speaker manufacturers are not interested in catering to the minority. There's just not enough money in it. If you want something that fits your specific taste learn how to build it yourself. If you really want something that sounds like the '70s pick up some JBL pro gear. |
|
chestkicktest | >If you really want something that sounds like the '70s pick up some JBL pro gear. Yea, that's what I'm thinking too...my little rant is probably due to the fact that I haven't heard a decent surround system yet that will do high quality audio playback the way I'd like ie- clublike power but with clarity...If you've ever been a decent recording studio with mid-fields, you'd know what I mean! |
|
chestkicktest | http://www.jbl.com/home/products/product_detail.asp?ProdId=K2S9800DG&SerId=K2&sCatId= oh, they still make 'em like I like!...unfortunately, one alone cost more than my car is worth. LOL |
|
Derek | Well, they just don't make them like they used to. Thank GOD! You are probably into 60s mustle-cars too. You can pick up speaker as big and as bad-assed as the ones from yesteryear (See above). Bowers and Wilkins, Duntech, Wilson Audio, Thiel, Paradigm and others make them. The new stuff has a much spoother response, lower distortion and better controlled dispersion. The only problem is the cost of manufacturing, shipping and storing large speakers. Other than big-screen televisions everything else has been shrinking AND becoming more valuable. Just look at the fidelity of a $99 DVD player... Look at it from a retailers point of view -- how would you like to use 20 cu ft of back room space, with a pair of speakers or a case of cell phones? This does provide an opportunity though. You can build your own (especially subwoofers) cheap and easily surpass the mass-market stuff. Visit Solen, Madisound, Parts Express and Audio Concepts for DIY speakers. P.S. timn8ter, I remenber SpeakerLab. |
|
chestkicktest | >The only problem is the cost of manufacturing, shipping and storing large speakers. Other than big-screen televisions everything else has been shrinking AND becoming more valuable. Just look at the fidelity of a $99 DVD player... Look at it from a retailers point of view -- how would you like to use 20 cu ft of back room space, with a pair of speakers or a case of cell phones? But I'm ONLY referring to the speakers...smaller is indeed better and cooler for most things, but we're talking that low,beefy kick here man!...Yes, modern speakers are better in general in most all aspects EXCEPT for raw , air moving POWER...a subwoofer typically misses those crucial frequencies becuase the crossover starts kicking in. The ideal situation (for hi fi music listening) would be the improved components todays material and design offer with the big 'ol honkin' sized woofers of yesterday...I have indeed been looking into building my own, but man it would be much easier to find some studio grade mid-field monitor types.. |
|
timn8ter | Start here and work down. http://www.tadaudio.com/home/model-1.html |
|
timn8ter | Quote: "a subwoofer typically misses those crucial frequencies becuase the crossover starts kicking in" I know what you're talking about. This happens because in the case of mass-produced loudspeakers the target audience equates quality sound with lots of bass and highs they've never heard before so the makers don't worry about it. In my case, I built a pair of MTM towers that roll-off at 45 hz. I run two subs crossed at 80 Hz and that are EQ'd through a parametric eq. I've taken numerous test tones to get as smooth a transition from the towers to the subs as I can. How many people take the time to do this? We're not talking plug and play here. Oh yeah, it sounds great. |
|
chestkicktest | >Start here and work down. http://www.tadaudio.com/home/model-1.html Now that's what I'm talkin'about! sweet |
|
timn8ter | Quote "P.S. timn8ter, I remenber SpeakerLab." Yeah, those guys had stores here in Seattle and Tacoma. We all drooled over the SpeakerLab 7 with it's big paper cone woofer and horn tweeter. What I have now is much better. Today we have the benefit of space-age materials and being able to build on the research of those early audio adventurers. Don't discount all the old ideas though. I came across someone that built a system based on something from the '50s. Makes you wonder what these guys could've built if they had access to modern materials and digital technology. Check it http://www.decware.com/imperial.htm |
|
chestkicktest | >Today we have the benefit of space-age materials and being able to build on the research of those early audio adventurers. yea, and isn't it fascinating that you have hi fi fans who swear by ancient technology in this day and age ie- tubes! |
|
timn8ter | Yep, it is. I understand the draw but at the same time I also understand that it's not really the job of the stereo system to enhance the recording. That obligation falls to the engineer that produced the recording. Tube amplifiers introduce harmonics that weren't intended by the artist or the engineer. But, that's why audio is not based on just measurements, it's also based on perception, and that's as subjective as it gets. Personally, I'll stick with accurate reproduction and if it sucks I'll blame it on the recording. I have a feeling things are going to change with the introduction of multi-channel audio DVD anyway. |
|
| For the first time I disagree with timn8er who is a guru. It is not going to change with multi-channel DVD audio. There was once an event, or a performance. There were microphones there. It does not matter to the guy who bought the DVD how many, or where they were. That was the recording engineer's problem, and he might have got it right, or screwed up. But his/her job was to record what happened so we can hear what it was like being there. End of argument. If you want test your system with DVD-audio disks you have to listen to real recording of real music. Sometimes the engineers don't bother with the sub LFE channel at all, because nothing is happening down there. But when they do... Here is link. Fantastic stuff, and cheap. Choose the DVD-audio link. The Grand Canyon is something else.... http://www.naxos.com/naxos/naxos_marco_polo.htm |
|
timn8ter | I'll retort by expanding on my previous statement. The intention of my comment about recordings was not to criticize engineers but to point out that, in most cases, the artists and engineers have gone to great lengths to produce a recording that includes what they want the listener to hear. To intentionlly feed that recording through a device that always alters that sound defeats the purpose of audio reproduction. If you as a listener prefer the "warm" sound of tubes perhaps you should consider using a DSP. At least then you have the option of altering the sound or not. With tube amps that choice is taken away. My comment about multi-channel playback is directed towards the ability artists and engineers will have to recreate the performance environment with even more accuracy than ever. They will be able to place the listener in the middle row of the concert hall or on-stage with the performer. This is something very difficult to do with two-channel stereo. It's also still futuristic. The biggest hurtle as always is standards. |
|
| timn8er: "Personally, I'll stick with accurate reproduction and if it sucks I'll blame it on the recording". I completely agree. Or the performance, of course. The better the reproduction, the worse bad things will sound. So they should. But the recording is usually the problem. timn8er: "I have a feeling things are going to change with the introduction of multi-channel audio DVD anyway". This is what I disagree with. We will still need accurate reproduction. Even more so. Other things may change, but recreating the original sound will still be the ideal, and the goal. The demands on recording engineers will be greater. But no technology will be able to undo their mistakes. So we have to do the best with what they did. Just like stereo, where a lot of engineers never learned where to put microphones in fifty years. No change there, then. All we can do is not buy junk recordings in the first place. This is getting off topic. But there is a general issue at the bottom of a lot of posts here. A workmate once had a Walkman-type personal tape player. It had a big dial on the front, with settings labeled things like Rock, Jazz, Blues, Classical, Disco. She could not see my problem with that, but it is so simple. How can anyone think the machine can evaluate what the recording engineers did or did not do; compensate; and then give you what you prefer to hear? Does it read the engineers set-up and your mind? I just don't see how anyone can think, even for one second, that any technology can do this. Some HT receivers have similar settings. Even our basic Sony television seems to think there are different sound and color settings for Sport, Movies, News & Current Affairs. You might as well take out lots of different-colored spectacles to view different things, maybe "Sunset", "Forest", "Street", "Beach". It is self-delusion, that's all it is. Sorry, folks. Next post on Why home theater setups suck horribly. Probably they suck horribly because the makers think they can tell you how the world should sound. Don't buy stuff like that, it only encourages them. Instead, buy stuff that tells it like it is. |
|
| timn8er: "Personally, I'll stick with accurate reproduction and if it sucks I'll blame it on the recording". I completely agree. Or the performance, of course. The better the reproduction, the worse bad things will sound. So they should. But the recording is usually the problem. timn8er: "I have a feeling things are going to change with the introduction of multi-channel audio DVD anyway". This is what I disagree with. We will still need accurate reproduction. Even more so. Other things may change, but recreating the original sound will still be the ideal, and the goal. The demands on recording engineers will be greater. But no technology will be able to undo their mistakes. So we have to do the best with what they did. Just like stereo, where a lot of engineers never learned where to put microphones in fifty years. No change there, then. All we can do is not buy junk recordings in the first place. This is getting off topic. But there is a general issue at the bottom of a lot of posts here. A workmate once had a Walkman-type personal tape player. It had a big dial on the front, with settings labeled things like Rock, Jazz, Blues, Classical, Disco. She could not see my problem with that, but it is so simple. How can anyone think the machine can evaluate what the recording engineers did or did not do; compensate; and then give you what you prefer to hear? Does it read the engineers set-up and your mind? I just don't see how anyone can think, even for one second, that any technology can do this. Some HT receivers have similar settings. Even our basic Sony television seems to think there are different sound and color settings for Sport, Movies, News & Current Affairs. You might as well take out lots of different-colored spectacles to view different things, maybe "Sunset", "Forest", "Street", "Beach". It is self-delusion, that's all it is. Sorry, folks. Next post on Why home theater setups suck horribly. Probably they suck horribly because the makers think they can tell you how the world should sound. Don't buy stuff like that, it only encourages them. Instead, buy stuff that tells it like it is. |
|
timn8ter | I think that's what I said. Quote "in most cases, the artists and engineers have gone to great lengths to produce a recording that includes what they want the listener to hear. To intentionlly feed that recording through a device that always alters that sound defeats the purpose of audio reproduction." Audio reprodution is the science that supports the art of music and theater. It's not an art in itself. |
|
timn8ter | Hey John, Thanks for the opportunity to have an intelligent dialog. Tim |
|
| Tim, You are welcome. We agree. It is a pleasure to read your posts here, full of good sense and knowledge of different products. The pdfs from Infinity and the AES, whose links you gave under different thread, are really useful. Sorry about the double post. I got an error message from the first one, so sent it again. John |
|
Derek | Check out the following link... http://www.guidetohometheater.com/shownews.cgi?1582 They actually DO make them like they used to. |
|
timn8ter | OMG, that's great stuff. Here's one for you. I remember looking up at the roof of the old Seattle Center Coliseum and seeing stacks of VOM's hanging from the ceiling to provide quadrophonic sound for Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon tour. How's that for nostalgia? |
|
timn8ter | How's this for nostalgia? I remember looking up at the roof of the old Seattle Center Coliseum and seeing stacks of VOT's hanging there to support quadrophonic sound for Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon tour. (circa 1972-3) |
|
timn8ter | Oops. Flashback. |
|
Derek | Totally. |
|
| Please, what's a VOT? Or VOM? |
|
timn8ter | A VOM is a typo. VOT is Altec Lansing's Voice Of the Theater speaker system mentioned in the article. |
|
| Thanks. Well chestkicktest should buy some VOTs. Simple as that. Pink Floyd. Wow, a blast from the past. |
|
jimi | Time8ter (or whatever).... Man your talkin mostly crap dude! Them 70s speakers had none of the "sloppy horns"or whatever else you posted in your pathetic rant. The "brilliant" home theaters that poor dumb slobs go and invest in just cuz its "all the rage" makes me wanna laugh. Bigger speakers will always better audio sound than some mickey mouse HT speaker...deal with it.Im an audiophile and ive worked almost my whole life around or in audio and i can tell you some of those 70s speakers were the best there ever was or will be. For PURE POWERFUL SOUND big will always be BETTER. as for tv....well....my 14 inch will do just fine  cheers |
|
Max | Hey, yeah dude 70's speakers were great he must have never heard the jbl l-100's or ANY old Dynaco's. My 20 year old Dynacos sound so good and they use 10's, no sloppy honky mush bass,none. Hey chestkicktest you would love my system I have 4 10inch floorstanding dcm's that are just awesome, I got them just yesterday at 99$ each. I do agree that todya all you see is like 6.5's and under. I just can't see them knocking the wind out of me like my 10's. Some would argue that they have better sound quality, I also find this not always the case. Ok yeah old klh,kenwood and pioneer 12' and 15's sucked but that was because they were built all wrong. They use to have like 3 tweeters and 2 midranges which just never sounded right. The new floorstanders have been made right for the most part, for example my Dcm's have a 6.5 midrange and one tweeter and the 10, with 2 ports. It sounds so smooth and tight and it will hit your chest like a fist. They also use better materials nowadays. Ok thats my 2 cents. Max |
|
timn8ter | Yep, I'll agree with some of that. My rant was a generalization responding to another rant containing generalizations. There were great speakers built in the '70s, also in the '50s. Klipsch Cornwall comes to mind. I can't accept the fact that there is nothing to compare with them today. Bigger is better is another generalization I can't accept. My current HT setup contains mains, centers, and surrounds with 3 inch, yep that's right, 3 inch drivers (18 total). The lows are handled by two subs, a 15 and 12 inch. I'm not kidding when I say they sound awesome for movies and music (I listen to a lot of music)and everyone that's heard them so far agrees. But,they didn't come out of a store or from a website. They are the result of a lot of research and hard work on my part and the use of modern materials and technology on the part of the driver manufacturers. The bottom line is, good designs + good parts = great speakers. |
|
Max | Hey, Yeah I will agree with that! 2 powered subs would be just awesome. I guess I could just never get them to blend with my speakers seemlesly, but maybe smaller cones are better for blending with subs. So what kind of subs are they svs? hsu? I like those two! Ok, Max P.S Have you ever heard of Dynaco's? |
|
G-Man | Almost no audio engineers use big honking speakers as monitors. Why? Because what most of these big honking speakers do is move large quantities of air---most don't provide accurate reproduction, a good soundstage, or quality imaging. To get a large speaker to provide low range to tweeter levels seemlessly is very difficult. The woofer, midrange, and tweeter, have to be connected with high quality crossovers---and each speaker in the box has to be able to play at the same volume at low distortion with as flat as possible a deviation in db's at all the audible frequencies. There are so few full range speakers that can accomplish this you could count them on one hand. And most are very expensive. Probably the best fullrange ever made was the Waveform Mach 17 which cost almost 8K. Too bad that Canadian engineer/manufacturer recently closed shop. And by best I mean it most accurately reproduces the sound with almost no dips from 30 Hz through beyond your hearing ability. Now I wouldn't be suprised if one of the speaker companies owned by Harman International will get close to equalling that--or maybe even surpass it. They have deep pockets and love hiring great engineers, like Dr. Floyd Toole who used to be the senior researcher officer at Canada's National Research council on acoustics. The more expensive Infinity speakers (over $3k) have the RABOS system, which is a bass equalization set-up that is state of the art. Harman owns JBL and Revel too. The success of Definitive Technology has a lot to do with the fact that they realized the difficulty in making a true fullrange speaker, so they "cheated". They made what is basically a monitor speaker attached in one speaker to a self-powered subwoofer. This allowed their engineers to accurately match the subwoofer to the rest of the speaker inhouse and take away the consumers difficulty in matching a subwoofer to a speaker monitor and taking away much of the consumers dissatisfaction with most fullrange speakers. Afterall, it is often much better for your receiver or amp to "concentrate" on driving a monitor speaker without driving the woofer and let a dedicated amp drive the subwoofer. The woofer is far more difficult to drive and is usually what causes receivers to have problems. Enough rant for now:-) |
|
Max | Hello, Why stop ranting, I love to hear your knowledge! I don't know what you mean by the woofer causing problems to the receiver? I have another question too, would an H/K 225 with 65 wtts stereo 55 surround be ok with my Dcm's that are 200wtt rms and 400 peak? God only knows I would never run 200 wtts, that would kill me. But I keep hearing that underpowering speakers can damage them. Ok thanks again, Max |
|
timn8ter | Built all the speakers myself. Subs are a 122 liter sealed enclosure with the 15" Adire Tempest dual voice coil driver and a 72" tall transmission line type with a 12" Adire Shiva Mark III dual voice coil driver. Both are being driven by a 1000W dual channel external amp and EQ'd with a parametric equalizer. The mains go down to about 80 Hz so to avoid asking too much of them I cross the subs over at 100 Hz, although I have crossed the subs at 80 Hz and it hasn't been too bad, but I like the 100 Hz cross a little better. |
|
Max | Hey, Very cool Tim, you have any pictures? Max |
|
timn8ter | Yeah, I've got a pitiful excuse for a website that mostly shows building some kit speakers. Not that they're bad, I'm just happier with my own designs these days. At this time I only have two pictures of my new stuff. It's towards the end of the picture show. http://home.comcast.net/~tim.forman/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html |
|
Max | Hello, Thats not a bad site at all and I think it's pretty cool actually. Man your designs are awesome. How does that one with the 4 little woofers sound? Also how tall is that thing? I think its cool. Max |
|
G-Man | Max--I meant that driving a woofer taxes the receivers amplifier far more than driving the midrange and tweeter speakers. That is one of the main reasons for buying self-powered subwoofers. This allows the receiver to supply all the dynamic power easily by freeing it of the woofer/subwoofer responsibilty. This goes triplefold when driving a passive (non-powered) separate subwoofer. Another reason is that self-powered high quality subwoofers are just designed to do one thing well--play down to 30Hz or lower with the ability to do it loud or soft with low distortion---and there are not too many that do this great, particularly at their pricepoints. Most any speaker that tries to do everything well almost always fails. This is one of the reasons I like one or two HSU subwoofers mated with great monitor speakers. The great monitors are excellent at sound imaging and when correctly mated with quality surrounds and center channel can create a wonderful soundstage that is both seemless (when set-up well and balanced with an SPL meter)and gets one totally lost in the sonic experience. When done great it sounds like the band, orchestra, or movie is just there---the speakers cease to exist. Sigh.......:-0) |
|
timn8ter | Max, The mini-array consists of four 3" full range drivers and some minor electronics for baffle diffraction step compensation. It's only 45" tall and is vented to get a little more bottom end out of the drivers. The imaging and clarity is quite good. When listening to jazz vocals it's right there. In guitar music you hear it all, finger movements, resonance of the guitar body...in Classical you can easily distinguish the oboe from the other instruments which many speakers muddle up. Recently I've been enjoying Roger Waters In The Flesh DVD and also David Gilmour In Concert DVD both in 5.1. Fantastic. So as you may notice, good speakers can be good for all kinds of music. Also, LOTR The Two Towers comes through bone shaking loud and clear. One thing I'd like to add about subs; the best part about separate subs is the ability to place them in the room where they sound best. Every room is different when it comes to LF and to get it right requires some experimentation with placement. |
|
John A. | Thanks for the interesting stuff, Max, Tim, G-man. There were good and bad speakers in the 1970s, and so there are today. That's about it. And if the 1970 speaker was so good, then you are still using it, so what's the problem? I have some 1979 KEFs, use them, and they are brilliant. I also still maintain sound is sound, and there is no difference between a speaker for HT and a speaker for music. The coils moving the cones have never heard of Mahler or Hendrix; Casablanca or Men in Black. Casablanca is mono and makes less demands, that's all. |
|
Max | Hello, Thanks again guys. I actually still use my old Dynacos but the rubber surround is starting to deteriorate. I will get that fixed. I really like alot of those designs on Tim's page and you guys should check it out, I really like the "large" center channel. Max |
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