SVS Prime Tower or SVS Ultra Bookshelf?

[KEW]

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2885705-audition-4-mid-priced-ht-speakers.html

Another one:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2873945-9-budget-speaker-shootout-only-1-winner.html

Two different reviewers, I think.

Second reviewer also compared Chane to my current set:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/2895105-ascend-acoustics-sierra-2s-vs-chane-s-a2-4-has-begun.html

Thanks!
Always enjoyable to read speaker comparisons.

These are subjective reviews and trying to argue who hears what, etc. is pointless. I can say that I have heard a few of the speakers compared and have dramatically different opinions, so I think the best response is that the buyer should listen before committing to a final purchase.

I will say in he 9-way shootout that the Florida room with the wall of glass on the left, sheetrock wall and ceiling (without much to break up the reflections, and hardwood floors without much carpet would result in a very bright room prone to harshness as the volume went up - which seemed to be his biggest problem with the Ultras. So, that encourages listening in your home if at all possible. Clearly, the highs the Ultra provides would not be the best for this guy to use in his Florida room!

To the OP, my recommendation would be to go with Dennis Murphy's Philharmonitor BMR's if you can swing $1350 (plus shipping, which he caps at $100). These are -2dB at 30Hz and will not need a sub.
http://www.philharmonicaudio.com/BMR Philharmonitor.html

If you can't swing that, I always recommend the Ultra BS at $400 for their B-stock (the current ones are listed as scratched on all sides, but I'd bet these are swirl marks that you only see if you angle them just right - call SVS to discuss blemishes). Supplement these with two of the JBL 550p subs (or one if the money is tight). $990 or $1180 total.

 

[Roen]

OP needs to decide, before speaker purchase, if he will upgrade the sub after getting better speakers. If not, I would recommend an all-around speaker with a bass emphasis, like the SVS.

If the sub will be upgraded, it can do the heavy lifting down low, in which case, I'd push for a Chane since the sub will cover the Chane's weakness vs. the SVS.

I'm also partial to ribbon tweeters, or AMT's if I have to, versus dome tweeters, generally speaking.

BMR is nice in a sub-less setup, but with a sub, that low sensitivity will hurt.

 

[Pogre]

I own Ultra Bookshelf speakers and towers. They're both remarkable speakers. I got the bookshelves for $399 apiece from their outlet and I couldn't find a mark on them for a couple of days until I got a bright led on them at just the right angle. The "scratches" are almost non existant, and $800/pr is a fantastic price for some very nice speakers.

 

[gatorgene]

I have a couple of thoughts on Roen's speaker comparison. I have read that the Ultra's sound better after a breakin period. As I remember no break ion the Ultra's was done. Isn't that unfair? I have not seen any independent reviews conducted such as Sound & Vision, CNET, or Audioholics. In my particular case I will not be purchasing a sub because I live in a high rise condo and being a good neighbor I can't have the thunderous lows and vibrations of a sub. In addition I won't be playing extra loud. I want good detail from the center speaker as I think it is the most important speaker. No mention of a comparison of the center speakers either. MPK1970 evaluation of the Ultras states that they have trouble with highs in high volume. I won't be playing high volume in the condo. I have not read issues with high frequencies in any of the professional reviews. Lastly, Chance does not offer specialty "surround speakers" as do the Ultras. I am fixated on the fact that I can get 2 channels from each speaker to create a 7 channel system only using 5 speakers.
So all things being equal, 5 speakers Ultras $2600 vs 7 speaker Chance $1200. I'm having a real hard time accepting the fact that I can buy the Chance product for less than 1/2 the price of the SVS. How about some help here?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I have a couple of thoughts on Roen's speaker comparison. I have read that the Ultra's sound better after a breakin period. As I remember no break ion the Ultra's was done. Isn't that unfair? I have not seen any independent reviews conducted such as Sound & Vision, CNET, or Audioholics. In my particular case I will not be purchasing a sub because I live in a high rise condo and being a good neighbor I can't have the thunderous lows and vibrations of a sub. In addition I won't be playing extra loud. I want good detail from the center speaker as I think it is the most important speaker. No mention of a comparison of the center speakers either. MPK1970 evaluation of the Ultras states that they have trouble with highs in high volume. I won't be playing high volume in the condo. I have not read issues with high frequencies in any of the professional reviews. Lastly, Chance does not offer specialty "surround speakers" as do the Ultras. I am fixated on the fact that I can get 2 channels from each speaker to create a 7 channel system only using 5 speakers.
So all things being equal, 5 speakers Ultras $2600 vs 7 speaker Chance $1200. I'm having a real hard time accepting the fact that I can buy the Chance product for less than 1/2 the price of the SVS. How about some help here?

Interesting points.
I just wanted to point out, you should be wary of the "specialty surrounds" by svs. IMO you'd be better served by a pair of ultra BS than the 2 in one speaker. Bipolar/dipole speakers shouldn't be used anymore, and if they must, should be only in a small space. The dual wiring scheme imo is just a more convoluted version and you will not get an appropriate 7ch playback.
Also, svs may operate on a smaller margin,(but higher sales volume) and the finish will come into play over the chanes too.
.02

 

[Pogre]

Here is the Audioholics review of the Ultra Bookshelf. There is another one with the towers too. I'll dig it up.

*Edit: Audioholics Ultra Towers Review

**Edit: Here is a bookshelf speaker shootout conducted by one of our members with the Ultra in the mix.

 

[Roen]

I have a couple of thoughts on Roen's speaker comparison. I have read that the Ultra's sound better after a breakin period. As I remember no break ion the Ultra's was done. Isn't that unfair? I have not seen any independent reviews conducted such as Sound & Vision, CNET, or Audioholics. In my particular case I will not be purchasing a sub because I live in a high rise condo and being a good neighbor I can't have the thunderous lows and vibrations of a sub. In addition I won't be playing extra loud. I want good detail from the center speaker as I think it is the most important speaker. No mention of a comparison of the center speakers either. MPK1970 evaluation of the Ultras states that they have trouble with highs in high volume. I won't be playing high volume in the condo. I have not read issues with high frequencies in any of the professional reviews. Lastly, Chance does not offer specialty "surround speakers" as do the Ultras. I am fixated on the fact that I can get 2 channels from each speaker to create a 7 channel system only using 5 speakers.
So all things being equal, 5 speakers Ultras $2600 vs 7 speaker Chance $1200. I'm having a real hard time accepting the fact that I can buy the Chance product for less than 1/2 the price of the SVS. How about some help here?

Here's my order of preference for speaker layout for a 5.x.x system
5 of the same speaker in vertical orientation
3 of the same speaker for vertical orientation, 2 smaller bookshelf speakers for surrounds
5 of the same speaker, 4 vertical, 1 horizontal with the tweeter rotated acting as center
2 vertical speakers for Front LR, 1 same speaker but horizontal for Center, 2 smaller bookshelf speakers for surrounds
4 of the same speaker in vertical orientation for Front L/R and Surround, and a matching center channel speaker
2 speakers for front LR, 2 smaller bookshelf speakers for surrounds, and matching center channel

After all that, then I'll look into using specialty surround speakers as surrounds.

 

[Pogre]

Agree about specialty surround speakers and having 5 of the same speakers in vertical orientation is best for matching. I don't have 5 towers, but I do have Ultra bookshelf speakers (oriented vertically) that serve as a center channel and surrounds that were demoted when I got the towers.

 

[Roen]

The 7 speaker Chane setup i'd get is either 7 x A2.4 @ $1953 or 3 x A2.4 + 4 x A1.4 @ $1495.

The center being vertical or horizontal depending on your fitment capability. Make sure the tweeter is rotated the proper way when doing so.

Not sure how you're getting $1200.

For music, your most important speakers are your Front L R.
For HT, it's the Center Channel.
You might as well make them sound the best they can by having them all the same model in the same directional orientation.

The Chane / SVS comparison is the A2.4 vs. the Ultra. The A1.4 is a bit outclassed by the Ultra.

 

[Pogre]

The 7 speaker Chane setup i'd get is either 7 x A2.4 @ $1953 or 3 x A2.4 + 4 x A1.4 @ $1495.

The center being vertical or horizontal depending on your fitment capability. Make sure the tweeter is rotated the proper way when doing so.

Not sure how you're getting $1200.

I've read a little about the Chanes and most of it is positive. They do look like capable speakers. I'd love to hear them sometime.

 

[KEW]

Here's my order of preference for speaker layout for a 5.x.x system
5 of the same speaker in vertical orientation
3 of the same speaker for vertical orientation, 2 smaller bookshelf speakers for surrounds
5 of the same speaker, 4 vertical, 1 horizontal with the tweeter rotated acting as center
2 vertical speakers for Front LR, 1 same speaker but horizontal for Center, 2 smaller bookshelf speakers for surrounds
4 of the same speaker in vertical orientation for Front L/R and Surround, and a matching center channel speaker
2 speakers for front LR, 2 smaller bookshelf speakers for surrounds, and matching center channel

After all that, then I'll look into using specialty surround speakers as surrounds.

If money is no object, I can buy into this, however, assuming you have budgetary constraints, I would always opt for spending the same money buying better mains and lesser surrounds.
Hell, who am I kidding, I'm a music guy! If you gave me a budget of $5000 for 5 speakers (and assuming price does buy quality), I would spend $2000 each on the R & L, $500 on the center and $250 each on the surrounds.
But even for home theater, I just can't see sinking serious money into the surrounds. Try unplugging the mains and center and listen to just the surrounds. Why put so much money into that (unless you have the money to by top shelf for everything)?
But in theory, I agree with what you are saying.

 

[Roen]

In theory, we're all billionaires!

 

[Roen]

If money is no object, I can buy into this, however, assuming you have budgetary constraints, I would always opt for spending the same money buying better mains and lesser surrounds.
Hell, who am I kidding, I'm a music guy! If you gave me a budget of $5000 for 5 speakers (and assuming price does buy quality), I would spend $2000 each on the R & L, $500 on the center and $250 each on the surrounds.
But even for home theater, I just can't see sinking serious money into the surrounds. Try unplugging the mains and center and listen to just the surrounds. Why put so much money into that (unless you have the money to by top shelf for everything)?
But in theory, I agree with what you are saying.

I'd probably do $833 for each of the L C R, but otherwise I agree for fixed budget.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

If money is no object, I can buy into this, however, assuming you have budgetary constraints, I would always opt for spending the same money buying better mains and lesser surrounds.
Hell, who am I kidding, I'm a music guy! If you gave me a budget of $5000 for 5 speakers (and assuming price does buy quality), I would spend $2000 each on the R & L, $500 on the center and $250 each on the surrounds.
But even for home theater, I just can't see sinking serious money into the surrounds. Try unplugging the mains and center and listen to just the surrounds. Why put so much money into that (unless you have the money to by top shelf for everything)?
But in theory, I agree with what you are saying.

So here comes the other side. Lol
I'm a music guy, and an HT guy. You say to listen to just the surrounds and see how you like that. Ok, try unplugging the center and run the same test. It will be equally disappointing. It's not about what the surrounds do on their own.(or center) It's what they do with the rest of the speakers and the soundtrack as a whole. I've seen other guys say surrounds don't matter and put them wherever they fit, or you can cheap out on them, etc. I have to disagree, and if they are deployed properly and and care is taken to aim them properly(just like setting up the mains for soundstage and imaging) you should end up with a cohesive sound environment. Not a front of the room sound, and surround effects in the back. Huh, I think I just described a "mullet" of sound. This of course is just my opinion, and obviously they vary quite a bit.

 

[KEW]

So here comes the other side. Lol
I'm a music guy, and an HT guy. You say to listen to just the surrounds and see how you like that. Ok, try unplugging the center and run the same test. It will be equally disappointing. It's not about what the surrounds do on their own.(or center) It's what they do with the rest of the speakers and the soundtrack as a whole. I've seen other guys say surrounds don't matter and put them wherever they fit, or you can cheap out on them, etc. I have to disagree, and if they are deployed properly and and care is taken to aim them properly(just like setting up the mains for soundstage and imaging) you should end up with a cohesive sound environment. Not a front of the room sound, and surround effects in the back. Huh, I think I just described a "mullet" of sound. This of course is just my opinion, and obviously they vary quite a bit.

You can't fool me, you're just a "pretend" music guy!
(ducking and running for cover)

Seriously, consider the example of the Ultra BS and Towers. What would your surrounds gain by being towers over the bookshelf? I just saved you $1000!

 

[eirepaul]

Agree about specialty surround speakers and having 5 of the same speakers in vertical orientation is best for matching. I don't have 5 towers, but I do have Ultra bookshelf speakers (oriented vertically) that serve as a center channel and surrounds that were demoted when I got the towers.

Pogre,
why did you feel the need to demote the Ultra Center for a bookshelf for your center channel? Aren't the Ultra Centers specifically designed for that purpose? What is the advantage of having a bookshelf in the center. Please advise - thanks.

 

[Roen]

Pogre,
why did you feel the need to demote the Ultra Center for a bookshelf for your center channel? Aren't the Ultra Centers specifically designed for that purpose? What is the advantage of having a bookshelf in the center. Please advise - thanks.

A center channel isn’t designed to be a speaker for audio fidelity reasons, it’s designed to fit under a TV or in a cabinet etc.

As you have sound pan across the speakers, does it make more intuitive sense to have the same type of speaker transition sound from one to the other, or does it make sense to have a speaker transition sound to a speaker of different physical characteristics and then back to a speaker with the same characterisitcs as the first?

 

[eirepaul]

A center channel isn’t designed to be a speaker for audio fidelity reasons, it’s designed to fit under a TV or in a cabinet etc.

As you have sound pan across the speakers, does it make more intuitive sense to have the same type of speaker transition sound from one to the other, or does it make sense to have a speaker transition sound to a speaker of different physical characteristics and then back to a speaker with the same characterisitcs as the first?

OK, I fully understand that logic as well. Of course, manufacturer's claim this transition is seamless between the three fronts in their systems. I recently upgraded to SVS Ultra Bookshelves and Ultra Center from older Paradigm Monitor series and this Center is a massive upgrade - very happy with it (and the bookshelves of course). I would like to try a third bookshelf to see if it makes any difference in my setup, but this is not feasible. Wouldn't fit right under my screen in my setup anyway.

Thanks for the response.

 

[lovinthehd]

Pogre,
why did you feel the need to demote the Ultra Center for a bookshelf for your center channel? Aren't the Ultra Centers specifically designed for that purpose? What is the advantage of having a bookshelf in the center. Please advise - thanks.

He couldn't fit one of the towers Plus he had L/C/R bookshelves to start....

 

[Danzilla31]

I have been looking into upgraing the Infinity Primus 250 tower front pair of speakers in my home theater system for awhile now. I have a lower end buget of $1000. Of all of the speakers I have researched and reviewed I keep comming back to the SVS line up of speakers. My question comes down to whether the SVS Prime Tower or the SVS Ultra Bookshelf would serve me better. I do like great Home Theater sound however I spend more time listening to music. I have a fair selection of SACD, DVD Audio, Blu Ray Audio, and XRCD's in my libarary and enjoy emersing myself in the preformances. I do have an Acoustech PL200 sub with my system which I realize is nowhere near the quality of the SVS subs, however at the price point that I paid for my sub I am quite amazed with how well it handles what I throw at it. So with these facts in mind I would appreciate some imput from SVS owners as well as anyone else who has opinions or advise as to which set of speakers would best serve my listening desires the best. Thanks for your input.

I own 2 SVS PB 4000's subs. And currently have 3 SVS prime towers as my front 3. I'm planning on upgrading to all SVS speakers down the road.

As people have mentioned there are good alternative options for the money out there. Why SVS will be my final stop on speakers is first off I really enjoy the Prime Towers. For music and home theater. I like them so much I want to move up the line and go with there ultra line.

Second as mentioned there outstanding customer service before and after purchase which I can vouch for. They're excellent bill of rights. They're free shipping both ways generous trial period and free returns. Risk free home auditions gets no better then that.

And third they are for the money both in the Prime series and Ultra series excellent at being solid good measuring speakers. Like there subs they may not stand above the crowd but they do everything very well with no glaring apparent weaknesses. For the money that's good enough for me. I don't want to keep running down the rabbit hole with this hobby and the Ultra line will keep me happy and be enough. And that's good enough for me.

Now what to recommend the Prime Towers or ultra bookshelves others have said it it would be helpful to know your room size listening requirements etc etc before we can make suggestions. In the right sized room you may not need the towers.

Good luck on your selection pm me if you want more feedback on those prime towers. I'm a very satisfied SVS customer and I hope my feedback helps. Here's a pic of them setup with the subs in my room