Here's a too much time on my hands response:
Isn't the subwoofer(s) the most important speaker(s) in a home theater? Bass accounts for 30-50% of the experience. Plus, with relatively low watts per channel of average AVRs (80-120 wpc) they rely, and I mean rely on proper bass management to perform at their best?
I wouldn't say most important. Ever listen with just your sub? The mains are kind of critical, subs are auxiliary. That being said, the sub driver, extra amplification, eq, and cab may end up making it a significant portion of the overall expense.
80-120w would suffice for a majority of folks in typical domestic settings and using speakers of typical sensitivity. Off loading the low frequencies by employing bass management helps.
We always talk about proper bass management increasing AVRs amplifier headroom, and increasing dynamic range of speakers. This is true, but how much? What would a wpc measurement look like run from 80 Hz to 20,000 Hz instead of full bandwidth? Would it be significant? 5 watts per channel more?
The extra power is marginal, but it is a positive number. The more directly audible difference is the reduction of modulation distortion produced by the speakers relieved of the task of producing low frequencies. But a smidge more headroom is always good.
Beyond speakers measuring flat in a system, is the next most important aspect to an audio experience dynamic range? Shouldn't we be discussing how to put together a system to achieve an appropriate dynamic range? Isn't there a calculation for dynamic range of an audio system? Something involving wpc, speaker sensitivity, and room size? Wouldn't this information be vital when choosing an AVR for speakers/room?
Wide dynamic range is one of many priorities to juggle. While dynamic range and thermal compression specifications are common in pro audio, they're pretty much absent from speakers for the domestic market. And for domestic situations it's not that critical, fortunately, provided some consideration for your particular situation is given. This ties in with some of the rest, so...
How much do bass frequencies impact the dynamic range of a system? What are the limitations on dynamic range of a system when using smaller satellite speakers and multi-sub? What does a graph of frequency and dynamic range at a specific input level look like? A graph of frequency and amplifier power use?
Keep in mind that much of the bass comes from the speakers. It extends up several hundred Hertz above the sub's range. This is important to consider, given speaker dynamic range and the setting they'll be used in. All speaker systems are constrained by the limits of the drivers involved, but a well sorted system will have similar limits across the board. Its here that you run into the dynamic range limits of smaller satellites, particularly in the 80-400 Hz band.
There is a cool interactive graphic from one of the music sites I'll try to dig up for you. It's been posted before, but I'm on the phone not the 'puter so tedious to search for. It has power and frequency data for all orchestral instruments, reveals how critical that mid-bass range is.
Why is anyone buying large towers? I've done it. But why? Unless you need to fill a really large room with sound, isn't a bookshelf speaker with something like a 6" driver better?
Bingo! Wait, no! You get larger ones because of their wider dynamic range and ability to fill a larger space. Smaller speakers suffice for smaller spaces or near-field use. So it boils down to establishing your objectives given the room you're working with and then choosing the right tool for the job. For many folks' listening habits and rooms, the smaller speakers are a perfectly viable option.
Why don't more speakers meant for home theater have sealed cabinets rather than ported? If you're planning to Crossover at 80 Hz anyway, it would most likely provide a better/easier integration with a sub.
Some do, although the one I'm familiar with (M&K) are long out of business. It makes some sense, and I too find sealed mains easier to blend. Less weird phase shift problems to deal with. Also why it's advisable to high pass ported mains an octave or so above their f3, to sidestep those issues.
Why isn't everyone using 2.1 or 2.2 for stereo music listening? There are so many advantages
Cost, complexity? Many of us long for stereo kit with proper bass management, but it's quite rare, leaving the big clunky avr as a primary option, which not only lacks elegance but requires a video monitor for setup.You're right, though. Full range stereo >> limited range stereo. Even larger, more full range speakers can benefit from subs.
AVR are better than stereo components for almost everyone. The typical auto setup built into an AVR will bring most systems so much closer to great unless you spend thousands and thousands. The eq of the bass below 150 Hz alone has an incredible impact on sound quality (another subwoofer plus)
Pretty much, yes, although AVRs do cut corners, particularly the amplifiers, and heavy handed protection cicuits, which only protect the under-engineered amps and ironically increase risk to speakers. Fortunately, those are easily avoided problems, for a few extra bucks of course. Also, for good speakers that integrate well with local acoustics, room correction auto eq will probably do more harm than good above the room's transition frequency, but can help below the transition frequency.
[Tower] speakers cost so much more for most often a very little performance gain over a bookshelf. Especially with proper bass management. Why even invest the extra money
Wide dynamic range in the mid-bass. Take the less capable speakers to their limits and they'll let you know.
Are there any downsides to plugging the port on the back of a speaker in terms of sound quality/frequency response?
Plugging the port will raise f3 and reduce the slope of the roll off from approx 24db/oct to approx 12db/oct. The change in f3 will force you to compensate with higher extension from the sub, so there is more chance for the sub to be localizable.
Full bandwidth speakers are big! They're expensive! They're hard to power! Why even try? For most people.
Big, yes, expensive, quite likely, but not necessarily difficult loads. Sure, there are the revel salons and such, but many others as well, some quite sensitive and thus easy to drive.
Isn't a speaker's sensitivity rating the second most important speaker measurement? It greatly impacts choices for the rest of the system.
Acoustic characteristics are most important as that's what you hear; electric characteristics are still important, as you pointed out. Sensitivity (along with impedance and phase measurements) will dictate what sort of amplification you will need, always keeping in mind how hard you need to flog them to achieve desired listening levels. So insensitive speakers would be a poor choice for larger rooms, where the requisite power approaches the speaker's limits. Better to use a higher sensitivity speaker in that case. But
sensitivity itself is not a determinant of sound quality. [Well, maybe, in the sense of where the more sensitive speaker producing the same spl as a less sensitive one will be operating at a lower range of its safe operating area, while the less sensitive ones operate closer to their limits (thus more IM, greater chance to excite resonances or exceed mechanical limits). So, yeah, ideally, higher sensitivity has inherent advantages, which need to be taken along with other design considerations. Speaker design is an exercise in trade-offs and compromises, after all. I would still enjoy the heck out of some BMRs, in spite of their low sensitivity and need of a more juicy amp.]
