How much better do better speakers actually sound? Where's the breaking point of value/performance?

[William Lemmerhirt]

Wait, 40 posts and nobody talked about new subwoofers? Where did you guys put my Audioholics?!?!?!?!?

Interesting thread. Welcome.

 

[MalVeauX]

Wait, 40 posts and nobody talked about new subwoofers? Where did you guys put my Audioholics?!?!?!?!?

Interesting thread. Welcome.

Hah, thanks. Currently I'm ok with my budget subs. I have four 12's that keep us satisfied. I will eventually replace them to get better quality, I have been following information on recent HSU, SVS and Monolith options (for movies) in those budget ranges with ported 15's. But if I had to choose one thing to make better first, it would be the quality of dialog and instrumentation in movies first.

Very best,

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Hah, thanks. Currently I'm ok with my budget subs. I have four 12's that keep us satisfied. I will eventually replace them to get better quality, I have been following information on recent HSU, SVS and Monolith options (for movies) in those budget ranges with ported 15's. But if I had to choose one thing to make better first, it would be the quality of dialog and instrumentation in movies first.

Very best,

Sorry I couldn’t help it. It seems the conversation always goes that way sooner or later. I can definitely appreciate you playing the long game. It’s waaaaaay too easy to get sucked in.
FWIW, I use a 505 as a mid bass module with a pair of pc12pluses. No point to that other than to say I’m familiar with the polks.

Appreciate your well written posts, even if long. Too many times we get posts from new guys that are like jdjdidjd jdjdj joker hdbjsk speaker ndjkajbdjdj..... what’s the best one? Lol.

 

[MalVeauX]

Sorry I couldn’t help it. It seems the conversation always goes that way sooner or later. I can definitely appreciate you playing the long game. It’s waaaaaay too easy to get sucked in.
FWIW, I use a 505 as a mid bass module with a pair of pc12pluses. No point to that other than to say I’m familiar with the polks.

Appreciate your well written posts, even if long. Too many times we get posts from new guys that are like jdjdidjd jdjdj joker hdbjsk speaker ndjkajbdjdj..... what’s the best one? Lol.

Thanks, that's interesting you mentioned as a mid bass module, I'm unfamiliar with that. Maybe something new to learn on my end? I assume that means you have it limited to mid bass frequencies and you use the other subs for the sub bass frequencies?

I do apologize for lengthy wordiness, but as mentioned, it's quite difficult to finish a complete thought that really is a collection of thoughts rather arbitrarily organized. That and I fairly loathe short hand and/or "chat speak." I'm horrible with cellphones and cannot text briefly for the life of me, but given a mechanical keyboard.... well...

Very best,

 

[KEW]

Thank you, I'll check those out.

Do you feel like matching the speakers matters much when it comes to surrounds and rears in home theater application?

Very best,

Do this, Pick one of your favorite movies which has better than average HT/surround sound. Unplug the front 3 speakers from the back of the AVR, then watch you favorite section of the movie and see if that helps inform your decision.

I won't say it doesn't matter at all, but generally our ears are most tuned to detecting voices that do not sound natural. It is rare for there to actually be any clear dialog on the surrounds. There is plenty of indistinct crowd chatter, but see how your Polks sound given the content of the surrounds.

 

[MalVeauX]

Do this, Pick one of your favorite movies which has better than average HT/surround sound. Unplug the front 3 speakers from the back of the AVR, then watch you favorite section of the movie and see if that helps inform your decision.

I won't say it doesn't matter at all, but generally our ears are most tuned to detecting voices that do not sound natural. It is rare for there to actually be any clear dialect on the surrounds. There is plenty of indistinct crowd chatter, but see how your Polks sound given the content of the surrounds.

Good point! While I have several smaller towers as my surrounds right now, again, it was due to being inexpensive and a lot easier to keep from toppling over with kids about the house. They are too low to the ground for use really. I think in the future, small book shelves or purposed surrounds that can be mounted and directed will be in order. Their purpose in surround seems to mostly just be supplemental mids & treble.

Very best,

 

[KEW]

My preference for surrounds is that they be part of the same speaker line, or at least intended to work together. I've also got mismatched ones (two systems of each). Not horrible but for multich music particularly I prefer them more matched than not, for only tv/movies doesn't matter as much.

Okay, for music, where the surround channels have an equivalent signal to the fronts, I could see it. Almost everything I listen to (music) is stereo.
What do you have with surround sound and what do they do with the rear channels? Is it intended to reproduce the ambient/reflected sounds of the venue or are you sitting with the band around you?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Thanks, that's interesting you mentioned as a mid bass module, I'm unfamiliar with that. Maybe something new to learn on my end? I assume that means you have it limited to mid bass frequencies and you use the other subs for the sub bass frequencies?

I do apologize for lengthy wordiness, but as mentioned, it's quite difficult to finish a complete thought that really is a collection of thoughts rather arbitrarily organized. That and I fairly loathe short hand and/or "chat speak." I'm horrible with cellphones and cannot text briefly for the life of me, but given a mechanical keyboard.... well...

Very best,

Lol! I tend to be windy too, and my people give me a hard time for using punctuation of all things. Can you believe that? Lol.

No apologies necessary. Like I said, despite the extra length, they’re well thought out, and written.

Yes. I’m basically using my 505 between 30 and about 50 hz. Reason being the 505 can make bad sounds when pushed hard or running higher in its pass band.

 

[lovinthehd]

Okay, for music, where the surround channels have an equivalent signal to the fronts, I could see it. Almost everything I listen to (music) is stereo.
What do you have with surround sound and what do they do with the rear channels? Is it intended to reproduce the ambient/reflected sounds of the venue or are you sitting with the band around you?

Well, most multich music is 5.1 so no rear surrounds unless I matrix it, altho I do have some 7.1. Not all multich music will have equal signal to the fronts, that's probably more old quad stuff than most surround mixes. I listed all my multi-ch discs here in posts 15, 18.

As to where you're positioned, it doesn't really matter to me but I'd say most put you in the middle of the production.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

My preference for surrounds is that they be part of the same speaker line, or at least intended to work together. I've also got mismatched ones (two systems of each). Not horrible but for multich music particularly I prefer them more matched than not, for only tv/movies doesn't matter as much.

I tend to agree. A seamless sound field is just that. Yes, room acoustics will be at play, but especially with today’s soundtracks, it’s just as important(IMO) as with music to at least stay in the same line. I say this as a 90% music and 90% movie guy, meaning I’m equally as critical of both. I’ve had mismatch mains and surrounds and matched is absolutely better. @KEW and I have disagreed about this in the past but Kurt is more music centric and less critical of movies. I am equally interested in both.

 

[lovinthehd]

I tend to agree. A seamless sound field is just that. Yes, room acoustics will be at play, but especially with today’s soundtracks, it’s just as important(IMO) as with music to at least stay in the same line. I say this as a 90% music and 90% movie guy, meaning I’m equally as critical of both. I’ve had mismatch mains and surrounds and matched is absolutely better. @KEW and I have disagreed about this in the past but Kurt is more music centric and less critical of movies. I am equally interested in both.

I'm with you. I really like the current 7ch JBL Studio 5 system with the same CD in each speaker. The 5ch setup in my bedroom is the same speaker across the front, with slight junior cousins from the same guy and while decent size compared to mains, not quite as good a tweeter or woofer (Ascend Sierra 1s and 170SEs). The other two rooms have a mismash of speakers and still sound good but one's a workshop and the other's a spare bedroom so....

 

[Mr._Clark]

Might want to check out SVS Ultra series, both tower and bookshelf. They do free in-home trials, too. Many satisfied customers of both from what I've read.

The JBL Studio 590s I have and like a lot, particularly if you can get them on the occasional sale price of $500 each delivered....

Ta da . . . . The 590s are on sale for $499.95 with free shipping at newegg right now:

https://flash.newegg.com/Product/9SIA5Z29CE7376

The studio 520 center is on sale for $149.95:

https://flash.newegg.com/Product/9SIA5Z267E2822

 

[MalVeauX]

Hrm,

Thinking more on the subject of a tower speaker vs bookshelf and the benefits of having more drivers in a cabinet to allow for more surface, a lot of that really comes down to the bass response, right? So really, looking at towers with several large woofers is really looking at speakers with more potential for bass response in terms of extension and higher SPL into lower ranges with a higher sensitivity from the larger volume cabinet. So looking at this from the perspective of using several sub-woofers to handle a lot of the lower frequency ranges, it makes me wonder, do I really need look at towers with larger woofers? Maybe it makes more sense to focus more on towers that have smaller woofers and are generally better equipped for upper bass frequencies and the all-important mid range frequencies? Or am I thinking backwards with this?

I often wonder if a lot of towers are designed around the idea of not including a sub-woofer and so that's why they push so many larger woofers into a tower to extend it's bass response and volume at those frequencies, designed as a pair of stereo speakers without any other additional help. Not all of them obviously, as many towers have built in 8" and 10" or larger passive woofers, which seems to show that they were designed to operate on their own without an additional subwoofer for most applications. This of course to me seems more oriented to music in general, as most music outside of the synthetic production reaches down way below 30hz in general for very long.

So how about towers that are more designed for the purpose of home theater with the use of a subwoofer to crossover to and compliment? Or, does that really fall to bookshelf speaker designs?

For example, comparing a Polk RTi A7 to a RTi A9. It's the same thing, but with more woofers. So really, the A9 seems to be the more "on its own" set of towers, while the A7 looks like something you'd pair with a subwoofer for movies. Or, looking at SVS, the Prime vs Pinnacle, the difference really is the extra woofer and slightly different layout, but ultimately similar speaker, just with more woofers. Or even looking at the Salk SongTowers, probably great for music, but perhaps needs a subwoofer ultimately for movies though based on how its designed with the woofer size and layout and cabinet size.

Is this the difference perhaps between a "full range" speaker and something meant to be paired with a dedicated subwoofer?

Ultimately I would much rather have potent and numerous subwoofers to handle low frequency rather than ask a tower speaker to do it all. So I'm interested in natural sounding (vocals and instruments sounding natural and not synthetic or odd) towers and less interested in their bass extension perhaps. But maybe I have this wrong?

Very best,

 

[snakeeyes]

I guess you know a lot already but I’ll add my thoughts.

The upper line up speakers will have much nicer cabinets and tweeters. The cabinet must not be hollow and built like ikea furniture or it will be mediocre. Think of it like buying a violin.

You need to spend probably $800 to $1000 per speaker across the front 3 but it will be less if you shop sales.

You won’t get full range without a pair of equal in quality subs. The quality of the subs matters as well. Probably you should look at SVS and HSU and Rythmik. Once you are doing quality subs, that does take the load off the main speakers. If you can find skinny towers or even bookshelves that can play loud enough in your room, that would save you a lot of money.

And finally, you need a plan for the center. A bad center will ruin the theater sound. Its doing about 80% of the work.

The surrounds ideally would be with identical tweeters and same brand in same series but you could just go same brand in a lower series to save money.

Good luck!

 

[2channel lover]

Do you feel like matching the speakers matters much when it comes to surrounds and rears in home theater application?

It's never a bad idea, but for movies there is no real gain having tonal matching surround speakers. Music...eeehhh, I'm learning from my experience if you get into multi-ch music it matters a little more, but still not a huge deal if they're not tonal matching.

 

[MalVeauX]

You need to spend probably $800 to $1000 per speaker across the front 3 but it will be less if you shop sales.

You won’t get full range without a pair of equal in quality subs. The quality of the subs matters as well. Probably you should look at SVS and HSU and Rythmik. Once you are doing quality subs, that does take the load off the main speakers. If you can find skinny towers or even bookshelves that can play loud enough in your room, that would save you a lot of money.

And finally, you need a plan for the center. A bad center will ruin the theater sound. Its doing about 80% of the work.

Thanks, that falls in line with the budget of about $3k right now for the L/C/R. Currently I'm thinking of just getting a 3rd tower as the center instead of doing the horizontal thing. I've been able to mount my TV's higher in the past and don't use media center furniture, and in my dedicated room I can do whatever. I currently have 3 towers in this configuration.

It's never a bad idea, but for movies there is no real gain having tonal matching surround speakers. Music...eeehhh, I'm learning from my experience if you get into multi-ch music it matters a little more, but still not a huge deal if they're not tonal matching.

Thanks, the surround thing is 98% movies, 1% games (rare that this matters for us), and I really don't have any multi-channel music beyond stereo and I'm ok with that. So mostly I'm just focusing on the L/C/R and subs for movies and the surrounds will be smaller and more discrete as to not be visually imposing and definitely acoustically imposing.

Very best,

 

[2channel lover]

Hrm,

Thinking more on the subject of a tower speaker vs bookshelf and the benefits of having more drivers in a cabinet to allow for more surface, a lot of that really comes down to the bass response, right? So really, looking at towers with several large woofers is really looking at speakers with more potential for bass response in terms of extension and higher SPL into lower ranges with a higher sensitivity from the larger volume cabinet. So looking at this from the perspective of using several sub-woofers to handle a lot of the lower frequency ranges, it makes me wonder, do I really need look at towers with larger woofers? Maybe it makes more sense to focus more on towers that have smaller woofers and are generally better equipped for upper bass frequencies and the all-important mid range frequencies? Or am I thinking backwards with this?

I often wonder if a lot of towers are designed around the idea of not including a sub-woofer and so that's why they push so many larger woofers into a tower to extend it's bass response and volume at those frequencies, designed as a pair of stereo speakers without any other additional help. Not all of them obviously, as many towers have built in 8" and 10" or larger passive woofers, which seems to show that they were designed to operate on their own without an additional subwoofer for most applications. This of course to me seems more oriented to music in general, as most music outside of the synthetic production reaches down way below 30hz in general for very long.

So how about towers that are more designed for the purpose of home theater with the use of a subwoofer to crossover to and compliment? Or, does that really fall to bookshelf speaker designs?

For example, comparing a Polk RTi A7 to a RTi A9. It's the same thing, but with more woofers. So really, the A9 seems to be the more "on its own" set of towers, while the A7 looks like something you'd pair with a subwoofer for movies. Or, looking at SVS, the Prime vs Pinnacle, the difference really is the extra woofer and slightly different layout, but ultimately similar speaker, just with more woofers. Or even looking at the Salk SongTowers, probably great for music, but perhaps needs a subwoofer ultimately for movies though based on how its designed with the woofer size and layout and cabinet size.

Is this the difference perhaps between a "full range" speaker and something meant to be paired with a dedicated subwoofer?

Ultimately I would much rather have potent and numerous subwoofers to handle low frequency rather than ask a tower speaker to do it all. So I'm interested in natural sounding (vocals and instruments sounding natural and not synthetic or odd) towers and less interested in their bass extension perhaps. But maybe I have this wrong?

Very best,

Post #54 touches on this, to echo his thoughts.

The vast majority of towers regardless of how you're going to use them would benefit from have a powered sub handling the lowest frequencies.

Even in a sub environment, you can get better mid bass performance from a pair of towers depending on how you cross them over. To make this a little easier...this is mostly a personal preference particularly for a modest sized space....if the space is on the large side...say larger than 3500 cu ft and you want the system to fill the room with sound, then towers will play louder on most cases.

 

[MalVeauX]

Post #54 touches on this, to echo his thoughts.

The vast majority of towers regardless of how you're going to use them would benefit from have a powered sub handling the lowest frequencies.

Even in a sub environment, you can get better mid bass performance from a pair of towers depending on how you cross them over. To make this a little easier...this is mostly a personal preference particularly for a modest sized space....if the space is on the large side...say larger than 3500 cu ft and you want the system to fill the room with sound, then towers will play louder on most cases.

Thanks, it makes sense, I was thinking out loud about how it's typical to crossover around 80hz to the subwoofer, but often times these towers can pretty competently handle 60hz and up, even entry ones. So the two have a little area to blend together for a seamless "drop" in frequency. Then there's towers with build in passive 8" and 10" woofers which are placed on the sides, etc, and clearly not meant to be radiators of mids and are meant to be omnidirectional sub bass it seems?

So it seems a tower is a good thing to use for filling larger rooms with sound from a single output in the system. Smaller rooms would just put one closer to the towers and they would just take up space where a bookshelf loudspeaker could do the job most likely, both options with subwoofers in addition.

I'm mainly just looking at what towers would be ideal, if towers at all, for what I'm looking for (natural dialog, instruments, etc) knowing that there will be several subwoofers on duty with them. Maybe better bookshelves are also an option. It also opens up the floor for higher quality as the same budget would allow for much better bookshelves after all. "Much" being relative, of course.

Very best,

 

[2channel lover]

Thanks, that falls in line with the budget of about $3k right now for the L/C/R. Currently I'm thinking of just getting a 3rd tower as the center instead of doing the horizontal thing. I've been able to mount my TV's higher in the past and don't use media center furniture, and in my dedicated room I can do whatever. I currently have 3 towers in this configuration.



Thanks, the surround thing is 98% movies, 1% games (rare that this matters for us), and I really don't have any multi-channel music beyond stereo and I'm ok with that. So mostly I'm just focusing on the L/C/R and subs for movies and the surrounds will be smaller and more discrete as to not be visually imposing and definitely acoustically imposing.

Very best,

LCR...I have a CC and it works great, but I wouldn't think twice about having three towers either.

98% movies...then imo, it's all about room size, and volume you will be playing it.

I've heard a killer B&W 805 D2 setup..in a 5.4 mode...this was a fairly large room with 5 bookshelf speakers and 4 subs....expensive as heck, but it sounded great.

 

[MalVeauX]

LCR...I have a CC and it works great, but I wouldn't think twice about having three towers either.

98% movies...then imo, it's all about room size, and volume you will be playing it.

I've heard a killer B&W 805 D2 setup..in a 5.4 mode...this was a fairly large room with 5 bookshelf speakers and 4 subs....expensive as heck, but it sounded great.

Thanks, I already have 3 towers and have used it that way with the L/C/R being the same speaker. And I've used a basic center channel that was matched to the system too. I've tried both ways. Ultimately we liked the larger vertical speaker better from a farther listening distance (12 feet now). At close range, it didn't seem to matter much as these are beyond overkill for volume at close distance.

With a bigger room and more distance, listening at fairly high volumes (~85db, maybe upwards of 100db peaking),the towers make a lot of sense both to increase SPL and also to fill out mid and upper bass frequencies.

However, as you pointed out, good bookshelves with multiple subs could do the job nicely too. I'm considering this as well simply because a good bookshelf at the same cost of a less good tower could equate to overall better quality and the bass would be handled by multiple subwoofers.

Just as an example, SVS Ultra Bookshelf for the same cost as a SVS Prime Tower.

Very best,