Trying to build a 5.1 system with $1000 budget? Read this!

[shadyJ]

There has been a spate of posts recently by people asking what 5.1 system to get for $1k. If you want a nice sounding system and are trying to get a surround sound setup for $1000, here is my advice: DON'T.

Get a 2.0 or 2.1 setup instead. Trust me, if spent wisely, it will sound much better than the same amount spread over more speakers. Quality > quantity. A couple of good speakers and a good subwoofer can give you a sense of realism and depth that a whole gob of cheap speakers can not, regardless of the application, whether home theater, games, or music.

I am not even saying to start with a 2.1 setup and build it up over time. I am saying 2.1 is all most people really need for a nice full sound, and by diluting the quality of speakers for a larger quantity, everything suffers. You lose a lot more than you gain. But yeah, it does make for an easy upgrade path over time, but that is not why I am recommending it.

Let's talk about skipping the center channel. The center is certainly the most important speaker after the front left and right, and subwoofer. It usually carries the dialogue, and its chief value is in making the dialogue less weighted to the left or right if you are sitting off-axis with respect the the optimum viewing position. It's nice to have, but it is not worth lessening a full, dynamic sound for. The left and right can carry the dialogue pretty well by emulating the center in what is called a phantom center. Your AVR will have this feature and it works pretty well. If your budget is modest, do not let the center channel eat into the budget for a good left, right, and subwoofer. The center isn't THAT special.

A properly setup front left and right can generate a really good soundstage that a center speaker doesn't really contribute much towards, at least if you aren't sitting too far off to the side. To repeat, it just anchors the dialogue and certain sound effects to the center of the sound stage, and the value in that is in off-axis viewing, not so much in on-axis viewing. On-axis, a good left and right setup can mimic a center very well (and has been doing so ever since sound engineers started working in stereo).

Let's talk about the surround channels, the rear left and right. DEFINITELY don't let surround speakers eat into a modest budget. They carry maybe 10% of the sound mix, but even that much seems high. They mostly just emit ambient sounds such as chirping birds, city traffic, rainfall, etc. Occasionally they will be used for an effect sound like a plane flying past, or maybe a helicopter or something like that. They are not at all essential. You don't lose much by not having them. They add slightly more immersion, but an aggressive use of them makes them a distraction more than anything else. I could easily live without them. A good, properly well setup two channel system can generate a very enveloping sound which surround speakers can only add a little bit to. Do not trade depth for breadth.

Now let's talk about the subwoofer. This is important, and this is what I see sacrificed far too often to get 3 or more speakers. Good subwoofers are awesome. Good bass is amazing and vital to a great, realistic sound. The subwoofer has the hardest task to do; sound reproduction is about moving air, and the sub has to move the most air by far. The sub should consume most of your budget. In a strict $1k budget, the sub should eat up AT LEAST 600 of that, if not more. That basically only leaves you with enough money for two halfway decent speakers. But the good news is that is all you need for a great sound.

A lot of people want a 5.1 or 7.1 system, and really they are just ticking off checkboxes. They want the idea of having a surround sound system, but they don't care about the actual sound. Don't be one of those people, they are terrible people in my book. If you want to be an OK person in my book (and you should), you need to want a good sound, not just an X amount of speakers.

Let's put it another way. If I were to put together a good 2.1 system for $1k and I had you or anyone else compare it to what would be considered a good value 5.1 system, I am betting at least 4/5 people would say the 2.1 sounds better. Now as the budget increases, diminishing returns set it, and you might as well go for a surround sound system, but the heart of the speaker system is the front left and right and sub, and you have to get those right first if you want a really good sounding system.

 

[zieglj01]

A lot of people want a 5.1 or 7.1 system, and really they are just ticking off checkboxes. They want the idea of having a surround sound system, but they don't care about the actual sound. Don't be one of those people, they are terrible people in my book. If you want to be an OK person in my book (and you should), you need to want a good sound, not just an X amount of speakers.

So, you are judging people by their sound system preference now - to decide if they
are terrible or good people?

Are you sober tonight?

 

[shadyJ]

So, you are judging people by their sound system preference now - to decide if they
are terrible or good people?

Christ no! That would be absurd, of course. I am not that shallow!



I judge people by the brand of motor oil they use in their car.

 

[zieglj01]

I judge people by the brand of motor oil they use in their car.

Well as long as they do not drink it, then they should be safe!

 

[markw]

I pretty much agree with the basic bones of what J said, but It seems to imply buying a two channel only setup. This might not be the best way to go. If one sees a multi-channel setup in the future, buy a multi-channel receiver now. There's no problem buying a multi-channel receiver as a starting point, but only implementing 2 main speakers, and perhaps a subwoofer) at first.

Leaving room for growth is not a bad thing, but the first step towards that would be a center speaker. timing may be somewhat critical since the beat way to guarantee the center matches the mains is to buy the one the manufacturer made to match them. If you can't get one, matching might be problematic.

Surrounds are nowhere as critical as far as matching the front three and any good sub can blend in with any system. That's why the best subs tend to come from sub only (or mainly) manufacturers. They can hitch their wagons to anybody's star.

 

[KEW]

I agree with you, Shady; too many people are concerned with the center and surrounds.

However, I would take a different approach to the sub. If music is your priority, I would suggest the SUB-1200.

You are right, $600 is the price of admission for a good sub for both music and HT.

But if you are willing to give up max. output and extension, while maintaining a good balance, I would offer the $150/ea. SUB-1200 as an alternative worthy of consideration.

The thing that makes this sub special among inexpensive subs is that instead of sacrificing sound quality with an over-blown ~20Hz port tune, the SUB-1200 provides a sub that disappears into the music (in a good way) and provides the bottom octave of music that is missing from today's 5"-7" main woofers. I have run a pair in a 16 X 24 room and they play music as loud as I can stand with the volume in the 1 o'clock position. They get loud and low, they just don't get loud and really low like a $600 sub would.

For HT, it certainly offers a lot over "no sub", but is not going to rumble like most other 12" subs. For many people who are more concerned with music than HT, that is a worthwhile sacrifice.

So, with a heavy emphasis on music, my approach would be buy one (or two to get the smoothing benefit) then spend $850 (or $700) on your mains.

I'm hoping to get a more detailed account of the SUB-1200 over the weekend including a comparison with my SVS SB12-plus, but your post begged mention of this budget sub. Try to check out the SUB-1200 - you'll see how nicely it plays music.

Let me offer another statement to explain this subwoofer. It is a marginal subwoofer, but an outstanding woofer. It will easily give you the solid bass of any mainstream 15" woofer from the past days of large speakers. Obviously, this adds a lot for HT (over just mains), but it is not a movie theater experience.

 

[rojo]

I know when I first returned to the market a year or so ago, I was struck by the cost of even what was, and is, considered affordable for respectable home audio. Cheapskate that I am, dirt cheap to others still seemed like a decadent up-sale to me.

Many years ago I got my RCA home-theater-in-a-box on clearance as a display model from Radio Shack for around $250. Many years before that I acquired my first subwoofer from Circuit City, also a display model closeout costing around $200. I was proud of what I had, it sounded better than anything any of my friends or family had, and what sort of fool would spend $1000 on a system for marginal (if any) improvement over the 100wpc receiver, 5 satellites, and 12" sub that I'd gotten for less than $500? I originally thought, y'all must be crazy. I now know that $1000 for an audiophile system is quite an anemic budget.

All I can say is thank God for killing my RCA receiver and putting me on the correct path. Compared to what I have now, my old system was a horrible mess. The F3 of the satellites was around 150 - 250Hz with a resonant coloration to match their cheap plastic enclosures, and the sub was an obnoxious uncontrolled boomy terror.

But because the HTIB + aftermarket sub I had were so very far better than TV speakers, Bose cubes, and soundbars, the truth was impossible for me to grasp. That inconceivable truth is that going from my HTIB to my current gear (as can be seen in my sig) had the same order of improvement (if not more) as going from TV speakers to my HTIB. The difference is not at all marginal or subtle as I believed it would be a couple of years ago. It is indeed profound.

I say all that to provide perspective. When we forum regulars suggest to a rookie that $1000 is a slim budget within which to work, there may be a disconnect in perception. We give our advice based on things the rookie may have never heard. If two years ago you had suggested to me that I throw away my 5 satellites + sub and replaced the lot with, for example, a pair of Jeff Bagby's Solstice tower DIY kits, I would've shaken my head and kept shopping for 5.1. I'd already done the stereo attached to a TV many times and found my HTIB to be superior. For one thing, a phantom center depends on a sweet spot that wouldn't necessarily envelop multiple seats, whereas an actual center benefits everyone in the room. I might've been more receptive to a set of five WaveCrest HLV-1's + an NXG NX-BAS-500.

shadyJ, your post is well-reasoned and well-meaning, and will be beneficial to any who follow it. I daresay not many will, though.

My advice for any rookies reading this is, if you are on a limited budget, consider used. Consider refurb. Consider last year's models. And take shadyJ's advice of piecing your system together bit-by-bit rather than settling for a mediocre final solution all at once. There are bargains to be had. My receiver is a refurb, and if I hadn't been the one who placed the order from A4L I might have never known. My MB Quart mains were closeout. My center channel came from eBay used. My Fluance surrounds were refurb. My Paradigm sub came from Craigslist. Indeed, the only gadget in the chain for which I paid full price was the MiniDSP. I'm a cheapskate. But with some patience, piece-by-piece, I've compiled a system I never would have imagined a couple of years ago.

 

[zieglj01]

I pretty much agree with the basic bones of what J said, but It seems to imply buying a two channel only setup. This might not be the best way to go. If one sees a multi-channel setup in the future, buy a multi-channel receiver now. There's no problem buying a multi-channel receiver as a starting point, but only implementing 2 main speakers, and perhaps a subwoofer) at first.

Leaving room for growth is not a bad thing, but the first step towards that would be a center speaker. timing may be somewhat critical since the beat way to guarantee the center matches the mains is to buy the one the manufacturer made to match them. If you can't get one, matching might be problematic.

If at all possible with good prices - such as sales and close-outs, I try to squeeze
in a 3.1 system to start.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Agreed. 3.1 is the way to go. As stated, sometimes later on it would be quite challenging (and/or expensive) to find matching center

 

[shadyJ]

I pretty much agree with the basic bones of what J said, but It seems to imply buying a two channel only setup. This might not be the best way to go. If one sees a multi-channel setup in the future, buy a multi-channel receiver now. There's no problem buying a multi-channel receiver as a starting point, but only implementing 2 main speakers, and perhaps a subwoofer) at first.

I am not trying to put down surround sound systems at all. I like surround sound. I am only saying there is not much a surround sound system can do that a 2.1 system can't also do, especially if you have a narrow seating area. A wider seating area makes a stronger case for a center channel.

I also don't advocate buying a 2 channel receiver, even for a 2 channel system. This is something else I should have mentioned. Two channel receivers do not have all the nifty bells and whistles that surround sound AVRs do. They might have a more robust amplifier, but many surround receivers have a good enough amplifier for a 2 channel setup, especially when one uses a subwoofer. To be honest, a mid range two channel receiver doesn't have a lot going for it these days. No bass management, no room correction, no HDMI, etc. Large scale manufacturing can give you a lot more features for less money.

That being said, it's hard for me to recommend many of the entry level model AVRs these days, they are not built to last. My low cost Onkyo and HK receivers didn't last too long, but my heavy duty Pioneer elites are still kicking. It might be worth splurging for something with a beefy amplifier so it will last longer, or just get an AVR with pre-outs so you can add an outboard amplifier. Amps aren't too expensive. If you look around you can get a reasonably good Crown, QSC, or Behringer amp for two to three hundred dollars. I have a two channel Alesis amp that has been going string for god knows how many years now. You could also just buy a older used AVR to use as a amplifier for a newer AVR that you want to last. Good old workhorse AVRs can be had for cheap because of the lack of HDMI and all the new stuff. But the amps can be very good. I have a Kenwood AVR from the early 90s that is also still going strong, it has a hell of an amp for its day.

 

[shadyJ]

If two years ago you had suggested to me that I throw away my 5 satellites + sub and replaced the lot with, for example, a pair of Jeff Bagby's Solstice tower DIY kits, I would've shaken my head and kept shopping for 5.1. I'd already done the stereo attached to a TV many times and found my HTIB to be superior. For one thing, a phantom center depends on a sweet spot that wouldn't necessarily envelop multiple seats, whereas an actual center benefits everyone in the room. I might've been more receptive to a set of five WaveCrest HLV-1's + an NXG NX-BAS-500.

shadyJ, your post is well-reasoned and well-meaning, and will be beneficial to any who follow it. I daresay not many will, though.

That's the problem, everything I say will bounce off anyone who just don't have the experience. Years ago my sister asked me to help her get a sound system for her computer. I said OK, lets go to Tweeters, which was a high-fi chain store back then. We listen to some really nice towers and bookshelf speakers backed by some real receivers. She was impressed, of course, but since the budget was really tight, we tried some other stores too, BestBuy and CompUSA. All of the systems they had there were anemic by comparison, and it was then she understood how much they sucked. They might not have sounded that bad to her if we hadn't went to hear the hi-fi stuff first. She wasn't willing to live with the sub par sound of the cheapo HTiB systems that were in her budget after experiencing good sound, so she saved her money and went on to buy a floor unit Yamaha AVR and a couple of good bookshelf speakers. Later on she added a heavy duty Elemental Designs subwoofer. By the way, I didn't prod her or pressure her to get the hi-fi stuff at all, I let the sound systems do all the talking.

The difference is stark, and anyone who is after a good sound would not trade a good 2.1 system for a middling surround sound setup after they have actually heard the difference between the two. A good surround sound system just isn't that much more immersive than a good 2.1 system. There is definitely added benefits, but the base 2.1 channels must be done right first.

 

[markw]

Shady, I don't dispute what you said in your original post. I just augmented that one could get by with a starter MC channel receiver, which wasn't plainly stated, at least in my book. A beefy receiver and a decent subwoofer alone can cost well over 1k. One has to start somewhere.

In fact, in your original post here, with a $1,000 budget where you state a subwoofer and two speakers, that money really doesn't leave much room for more than a starter receiver unless you want to really skimp on a subwoofer or speakers.

Given a limit of $100 with an eye towards growth, I can see this as a good way to evolve:

1) Take that 1k and get a beefy receiver and two good main speakers.

2) Quickly, get the matching center as soon as possible. It may not be available forever.

3) Save up for a killer sub. The more, the merrier. This is what really makes for a killer HT experience.

4) Surrounds, if possible from the same make/manufacturer but that's not critical for HT. For MC music, I'd say it is, though.

And, since this a constantly evolving hobby, I believe that a "starter" receiver can be a great investment if you want as much as possible of the HT it all at once.. Yes, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles and gobs of mega-power, but most have enough balls to cleanly drive many speakers and bass management. The best way to do what you suggest is to buy a meaty, mid-level receiver and only two speakers, forgoing a center, surrounds, and a subwoofer (which can be costly). That affords the most "mid-level" components but doesn't really offer all that much of a HT experience.

By using a starter receiver they can get a leg up into this hobby and and, as time goes by and they want more features or power, they probably already have purchased a full compliment of speakers to play with. then the audible differences between their modest "starter" receiver will be apparent. ...or maybe not so much.

But, I will take issue with this statement: "A good surround sound system just isn't that much more immersive than a good 2.1 system." Not true. Nothing is more immersive than the surround channels for properly recorded multi-channel source material.

 

[KEW]

For anyone wanting more discussion of 2.1 vs 3.1, There is more in this thread:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/center-huh-yeah-what-is-it-good-for.93885/

If you know you want a center, it is obviously a gamble to delay purchase. However, a center often costs half again (or more) what the L & R cost.

The variables we are being loose on:
Is $1000 the total and final budget, or is it the budget this month with ability to save for additional items later.
Music/HT ratio.

Personally, since I am 90/10 Music/HT; if $1000 was my final budget, I would spend $200 for receiver, $150 on sub, and $650 for two speakers.
This brings up another point. If I was buying Ascend CMT-340's (for example), I bet I could ask periodically to get updates on Ascend's plans to discontinue the center.

So, I think, the real answer is "It depends".

 

[zieglj01]

If you know you want a center, it is obviously a gamble to delay purchase. However, a center often costs half again (or more) what the L & R cost.

It may not be that expensive - if the l/r speakers are sold each - and if you have
room for a vertical center, then just by a third front speaker for the center.