First post

[AlphaWolf]

Hi, I am somewhat new to the audio scene. I know a lot about how digital side of audio works, e.g. the importance of a DAC, DSP, what PCM audio is, how it works, and what *should* sound better in a purely scientific manner.

However when it comes to the analog side of audio, and actually listening rather than observing, I am a complete newbie. I am currently in the process of taking my first steps away from HTIB solutions, as I have previously just relied upon them in the past.

I recently bought a Pioneer 816 receiver and a set of polk RM6750 speakers from fry's electronics. I was totally amazed at what $450 could do compared to most $1,000+ HTIB solutions out there. Absolutely the clearest audio I have ever heard outside of a movie theater, and in my own home no less. Obviously the so called "name brand" speaker setups (e.g. bose, sony, etc) aren't as great as they claim to be.

So I figure if $200 polk speakers can be this clear, then what could a $650 (my newly allocated budget) set of speakers do? Unfortunately it seems that most of the "underground" favored speaker brands, (which I am told are the best bang for your buck,) are beyond the range of auditioning, so I must rely entirely upon the opinions of others. That leads me here.

 

[avaserfi]

Welcome to the forum. You are definitely in for a learning experience. I know I was and still am.

Room dimensions are an important place for us to start so we can make sure you do have speakers that will properly fill your room. The x-sub is a good sub for the money and will be great for a smaller room, especially in a tight budget. I cannot speak for the HSU speakers though, as I have never heard them but I have heard good things.

Good luck and you'll be happy you came here there are a lot of people with tons of experience all willing to help.

 

[j_garcia]

Welcome Do a search on the VT-12 here, somewhere there was a review of the package and it wasn't entirely favorable, and I doubt they will be a step up from the Polks. You'll need to spend more than $300 to improve upon what you have. The X-sub should be an improvement over any of the lower subs from Polk though...

 

[AlphaWolf]

Thanks for the responses

The room I have is 11w 12l 8h, with wood flooring. Unfortunately I am going to move soon, and I have no idea what the next room will be like. It will be no larger than 15x15x10, that is for sure as I could never afford a condo/apartment with a room that large.

I thought the room mostly only made a difference when it comes to the mids and lows though? I don't know if I am terribly concerned about those, as it is mainly voice and effects that I want, for the games and all, which as I understand tend to be more in the mid to highs.

That said, this polk sub was quite weak on the sales floor, but sounds very powerful in my room. Unfortunately it has a bit of distortion at the lower frequencies though. This is the main reason I want the x-sub, as from what I can gather based on its specs, it should handle them better. Also, I am slightly more interested in being able to feel the bass than to hear it, as again I want to avoid having a loud setup. Just an accurate one, more or less.

I also feel reluctant about the VT-12's as well, due to what I have heard about satellites not being as good as bookshelf speakers. I am looking at the X-LS speakers but they're a bit pricey.

 

[avaserfi]

I have heard the X-ls speakers and they do sound great and should be an upgrade from the polks you currently have, but they are also about 900 after shipping.

One option I am an advocate of is start small and work your way up. I bought my receiver about 2 months before I could even buy my speakers, so I just had the thing mocking me, but I got what I wanted and I couldn't be happier now.

You could start out with a 3.1 set up that would fit your budget and when ready get the last two speakers for your surrounds possible even using your polks as a temporary surround.

Another thing to look at is selling the polks and using those funds towards your new speakers... just a thought.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I have heard the X-ls speakers and they do sound great and should be an upgrade from the polks you currently have, but they are also about 900 after shipping.

One option I am an advocate of is start small and work your way up. I bought my receiver about 2 months before I could even buy my speakers, so I just had the thing mocking me, but I got what I wanted and I couldn't be happier now.

You could start out with a 3.1 set up that would fit your budget and when ready get the last two speakers for your surrounds possible even using your polks as a temporary surround.

Another thing to look at is selling the polks and using those funds towards your new speakers... just a thought.

Of course, I am going to actually return them to fry's electronics within the 30 days. I've had them about 5 days. They were actually more than $200, and I was going to price match them, but I think I am just going to return them instead. They sound good, I just want better if I can get better.

 

[j_garcia]

Just upgrading the front 3 will make a big difference like Avaserfi said, and you can pick up some cheap surrounds in the mean time. I am sure the X-sub is better than the Polk, however it also isn't designed to go extremely low either. I got a Polk PSW10 sub free when I bought some LSI7s and while it was OK for adding more extension to the 7s, it wasn't exactly impressive.

You've seen first hand what room size does for a sub - a large room means you need more power to fill it, and a smaller one doesn't need quite as much.

 

[AlphaWolf]

BTW, when I say accuracy I mean being able to hear the little details, e.g. when in a song somebody sings softly in a whisper tone among louder music, and you can hear them crystal clear, all without hampering the music itself by e.g. offsetting it with an equalizer. This type of sound is more important for gaming, and is my primary objective here.

I have heard terms such as warm and cold, dark and bright, and I am not quite sure which category that falls under. Sorry, I find it a bit difficult to describe sounds.

 

[j_garcia]

SVS has the SBS-01 Package in white or silver for $449 (no sub) right now:

http://www.svsound.com/products-spks-sbs01_colors_white.cfm

It sounds like what you are looking for is something that is "detailed", and these speakers would fit that category. Good midrange with detail in the subtle sounds. I heard them in a room larger than yours and they did quite well. Of course, that leaves you needing a sub too...

 

[AlphaWolf]

SVS has the SBS-01 Package in white or silver for $449 (no sub) right now:

http://www.svsound.com/products-spks-sbs01_colors_white.cfm

It sounds like what you are looking for is something that is "detailed", and these speakers would fit that category. Good midrange with detail in the subtle sounds. I heard them in a room larger than yours and they did quite well. Of course, that leaves you needing a sub too...

Well, I suppose I could pair a 5.0 set of those with the x-sub. I think I am dead set on the x-sub because at least on paper it seems that it can hit lower lows than pretty much any other sub in that price range, including the HSU STF-1 which is priced higher.

Overall though, how would you compare the SVS speakers to the x-ls in terms of price/performance, and overall satisfaction?

FWIW I am still about a few weeks away before I will pull the trigger on anything. Especially given that the onix speakers are on backorder right now. If the x-ls speakers are overall better value, I could just buy them little at a time. Or I could just buy the svs speakers all at once.

 

[j_garcia]

IMO, both are excellent values, though the X-LS offer a bit more for the money. Much better looking cabinets and the sound is a step up from the SBSs to my ears. They are quite a bit larger than the SBSs though, if that matters. I bought the speakers I have now over time too, and I think this is a very good option.

The STF-1 is actually tuned a bit higher than the X-sub. The STF-1 is 32Hz, while the X-sub is 28Hz.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The STF-1 is actually tuned a bit higher than the X-sub. The STF-1 is 32Hz, while the X-sub is 28Hz.

But that makes the x-sub better right? Wider spectrum coverage is more complete sound, correct?

BTW, somebody on another forum made a point to me earlier, which was that with the kind of sound I am looking for, neither the SBS-01 nor the X-LS speakers will provide much of an improvement due to the fact that the polk speakers I have use a silk dome tweeter. What is your take on that?

Also, something that annoys me with pretty much *any* sound setup and gaming, is how the sound quality of the rear speakers seems degraded compared to the front speakers. I assume this is due to a lack of a tweeter in the rear when you have a 5.1 setup? Would this be solved by adding a matching center speaker to the rear for a 6.1 setup?

Or is there something else that causes this? I know that for movies the rear channels is supposed to only add ambience and nothing else. This is fine and all, and it makes perfect sense since with a movie your focus is with whatever is on the screen. Not so with FPS style games on the other hand - your focus is all around you. Surround in games is meant to help you instantly pinpoint the source of the sound. But that in mind, is this some kind of design element in most receivers to artificially weaken the rear channels, or just the lack of a tweeter like I described above?

 

[avaserfi]

Just because a subwoofer has a wider spectrum doesnt mean it has more complete sound. You shouldn't be looking for your subwoofer to give you complete sound thats the job of all your speakers. You should instead expect your subwoofer to play mostly in areas that are out of range from your regular speakers.

As for the polk vs x-series there will be an increase in sound quality, the tweeter alone isnt the only thing that determines SQ. Not to mention the x-series are brilliantly designed. They are the speakers I would own if I didn't get mine for more than half off.

As for the 5.1 sound degradation question during gaming. Well I didn't notice much of it when my system was 5.1 and I played resistance on my ps3 and now that mine is 7.1 I still dont notice a sound depreciation out of the surrounds. You might want to adjust your equalizer settings to set the loudness on each speaker properly. If that doesn't make sense I might have misunderstood the question.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Just because a subwoofer has a wider spectrum doesnt mean it has more complete sound. You shouldn't be looking for your subwoofer to give you complete sound thats the job of all your speakers. You should instead expect your subwoofer to play mostly in areas that are out of range from your regular speakers.

Right, but since both the x-ls/x-cs and sb-01/sc-01 sets should be able to crossover (or is connect the term I am looking for?) in e.g. the 100hz range, making the fact that the x-sub can reach down to 28hz a benefit, correct? Or am I missing something here?

As for the 5.1 sound degradation question during gaming. Well I didn't notice much of it when my system was 5.1 and I played resistance on my ps3 and now that mine is 7.1 I still dont notice a sound depreciation out of the surrounds. You might want to adjust your equalizer settings to set the loudness on each speaker properly. If that doesn't make sense I might have misunderstood the question.

Hmm...come to think of it, I don't know if I would describe it as the sound quality being worse or depreciated...just different somehow. It's mainly in voices and footsteps that I notice it the most. Especially in Oblivion. I think I may have once heard somebody describe this as timber. The kind of sound difference I am describing would make perfect sense if you removed the center speaker from the typical 5.1 setup, thus I am making the assumption that adding a rear center speaker would fix it. It is a bit subtle and for the most part I can ignore it, but when I do think about it and listen for it, it is somewhat annoying.

Also another question, since I am going for gaming, should I even bother thinking about bi-pole speakers for the surrounds? I figure I want the sound to be more focused.

 

[avaserfi]

Yeah, its a positive it can go that low (yes crossover is the proper term). I thought you ment you just wanted a very large range on the subwoofer, both in respect to lows and highs.

I think the problem you are describing with your surrounds is related more towards improper speaker calibration rather than need of another speaker. Does it sound almost like there is a hole in the middle behind you? If so then you need not get another speaker look into some proper calibration tools.

As for bipole speakers I think that is preferance more than anything else. With bipoles you will get a more full sound, but generally I think they end up being a little more highend.

 

[j_garcia]

Most of the time when you have unbalanced sound the issue is calibration as Avaserfi mentioned. Sometimes it is the speakers too, but even with average speakers, proper calibration can make a noticeable difference. Timbre refers to the fact that all the speakers in a system match, and this also adds to the realism that a system is capable of. I find that it is mostly with music where timbre matched rears really pays off; with movies it certainly doesn't hurt but is typically less critical. They should at least be similar in timbre though...

With a sub, lower is a good thing, but it does not always translate into "better".

Bipoles also generally cost you much more than a monopole(regular speakers) , and it really is a personal preference. I have heard a few well setup systems that sounded good, but overall I prefer monopole speakers for surrounds.

 

[AlphaWolf]

With a sub, lower is a good thing, but it does not always translate into "better".

But in the case of comparing it against the STF-1, it is better though, right?

Also, it looks like the x-ls/x-cs 5.0 setup will cost me roughly double what the svs 5.0 set will cost. You said the x-series is a step up over those, but just how big of a step up are we talking, if such a thing can possibly be explained with words? I guess what I am looking for is a monetary comparison - are the x-ls/cs speakers roughly "twice as good"?

 

[j_garcia]

It is difficult to quantify 2x better, but like I said, I would personally hold out for the X-series. You might actually be able to get away without a sub for a little while longer with them, as bass is much more pronounced on them. A sub is still a must IMO, but less of an issue vs the smaller SBS-01s. That is not to say you wouldn't be happy with the SBS-01s though, and if you went with them, you could get the X-sub at the same time, so it is a compelling argument.

If you aren't in a huge rush, you can order a set of X-LSs for a 30 day trial and they pay shipping both ways, once they have some in.

 

[AlphaWolf]

My bad, I just realized that in my haste to get to work yesterday I horribly miscalculated the costs. It will cost about $200 more for the x-series set. But yeah, I am not in a hurry. The x-series is probably the way to go.

Also I was told that the x-series probably sounds better at lower volumes than the svs, would this be true? This is more in line with my goals.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Another question I need to throw out there - is the Pioneer 816 really the best receiver for my price range to pair with the av123 x-series speakers? After the coupons and other whatnots, I got it for $237 plus tax from bestbuy, and since it was an open box they gave me a free $35 gift card on top of that. Is there a better receiver out there that is within the same price range, give or take a hundred? (preferably under $250) Reason I ask is because my brother in law, who is into music production (semi-amature though, doesn't own a studio but plays guitars and other instruments) was telling me about how bad Pioneer amps are.