Help Building 2.1 system for 65% movies and 35% music.

[shadyJ]

If one can't tell which is better subwoofer doing A/B then what are the parameters on which people have concluded SVS or REL or HSU or anything else is better than any other brand? I know I am being a pest here but I really wanna understand why SVS is so popular when people can't even tell the difference doing A/B?

I should put one qualifier on that statement: the subwoofer's extension will make a difference here. That is one thing that you can hear from A/B testing. Certain brands like SVS and Hsu tend to make deeper digging subs, and that difference is audible. However that is more a quantitative difference than qualitative.

As for other parameters that people use to conclude subwoofer A is better than subwoofer B, one is dynamic range, ie., sub A can get louder than sub B. Again though, that is quantitative.

A lot of people will also just assume that since subwoofer A is more expensive, it will be better than subwoofer B, and since our expectations influence our perception, that is what they experience, regardless of what is actually heard. It's the same phenomena that leads people to believe their aftermarket power cable improved their system's sound.

Certainly if you compare subwoofers from A/B switching in-room, you will favor the sub in the location that acts more benignly with room modes. The only way to properly compare subwoofer's intrinsic sound is either outdoors or in a room so large that it doesn't activate any acoustic modes (A football stadium sized room might work).

 

[aim1861]

I should put one qualifier on that statement: the subwoofer's extension will make a difference here. That is one thing that you can hear from A/B testing. Certain brands like SVS and Hsu tend to make deeper digging subs, and that difference is audible. However that is more a quantitative difference than qualitative.

As for other parameters that people use to conclude subwoofer A is better than subwoofer B, one is dynamic range, ie., sub A can get louder than sub B. Again though, that is quantitative.

A lot of people will also just assume that since subwoofer A is more expensive, it will be better than subwoofer B, and since our expectations influence our perception, that is what they experience, regardless of what is actually heard. It's the same phenomena that leads people to believe their aftermarket power cable improved their system's sound.

Certainly if you compare subwoofers from A/B switching in-room, you will favor the sub in the location that acts more benignly with room modes. The only way to properly compare subwoofer's intrinsic sound is either outdoors or in a room so large that it doesn't activate any acoustic modes (A football stadium sized room might work).

Hahaha okay then lets do Denon x3500 and Kef Q150 for now.

We'll decide the sub when I have access to a football stadium

I'll update with my purchases and observations using them in my living room

 

[lovinthehd]

I think you're doing yourself a disservice by trying to audition subs the way you're doing it. Just not meaningful results IMO. It is somewhat technical as far as checking out sub measurements and room/setup influences, tho, sorry. Within a certain range of brands with similar performance, it's hard to go wrong with a choice as well as they'll be more similar than different for the most part.

 

[aim1861]

Got new pair of KEF Q150s listening to Q100s and Q150s side by side I notice something weird or rather unusual. I heard everyone praising the new Q150s that its better than the Q100s in every regard. If price being equal or even $100 above the Q100s they would pick the Q150s over Q100s all day every day.

Now my observation is not that straight forward I am having a hard time deciding which ones to keep. To me Q150s seem to image better probably cuz the tweeters are set a lil deeper than the Q100s and taking benefit of the speaker cone as wave guide, I could be wrong too, even the bass output is more but I would say better just more.

The real problem I am observing with the Q150s that the vocals are not as clear as the Q100s, specially the high pitch voices it sounds screechy dunno whats could be the reason the break-in time or the frequency response the Q150s frequency response is 51hz - 28khz ±3db where as the Q100s 49hz - 43khz ±3db.

I am really torn I like the highs from the tweeters on Q100s better but prefer the imaging of Q150s and the screeching effect I was talking about happens at higher volumes I'd say above 70% volume which is not too loud for me.

Has anyone else experienced something like this in their side by side listening?

 

[KenM10759]

The tweeter in the Q150's is improved by giving it a few improvements, chief among them is the damping tube added behind the dome to both smooth it out and raise the frequency of cone break-up. This gives a smoother response at the highest frequencies, more accurate with less distortion.

Ignore the specs, because I asked a KEF engineer about the dramatic changes in frequency response (new series don't dig as deep nor go as high as the previous series) and was told that it's all in how they are measured. They've gone to a new method of measuring them.

You should be hearing more accurate rendition of vocals now, but had become accustomed to the previous tweeter's rendition.

 

[aim1861]

Well got another set this morning this time Elac B6.2s. Imaging is fantastic better than Kef Q100s for sure. Still a lot of hearing but I am planning on returning the Kef Q100s and keep B6.2s and Q150s for more testing and listening.

 

[snakeeyes]

I could be wrong but it appears like you have a passion for this. If so, the front 3 speakers is where to invest a little more if you really are into this. So the difficulty with speakers in that price range is that often the cabinets are not that good even if the components inside are decent. This is much more noticeable when listening to music. It might be worth a listen to some speakers a little above your budget to see if you are ok with the compromises in the lower end series or not of each brand. I would not rush to purchase, take a couple weeks or longer. Good luck!

 

[aim1861]

I could be wrong but it appears like you have a passion for this. If so, the front 3 speakers is where to invest a little more if you really are into this. So the difficulty with speakers in that price range is that often the cabinets are not that good even if the components inside are decent. This is much more noticeable when listening to music. It might be worth a listen to some speakers a little above your budget to see if you are ok with the compromises in the lower end series or not of each brand. I would not rush to purchase, take a couple weeks or longer. Good luck!

Thats the plan but can't spend a lot, I am limited with space and wife acceptance factor too

But what would you suggest me try?

 

[snakeeyes]

Thats the plan but can't spend a lot, I am limited with space and wife acceptance factor too

But what would you suggest me try?

It’s going to depend on what you like. I haven’t heard enough speakers to hand out the greatest advice at every price range. You might want to just use the search feature and look at all the speaker recommendations over the past year.

As far as my experiences, I like my Q Acoustics 3020 and 3090 center and they have excellent WAF (my girlfriend likes them) but they don’t campare to my Canton Vento 820.2. Maybe the Canton Chrono series would be an option from accessories for less. It’s a step below Vento. In any case Black Friday is around the corner so it makes sense to wait for that if you can. Good luck!

 

[aim1861]

It’s going to depend on what you like. I haven’t heard enough speakers to hand out the greatest advice at every price range. You might want to just use the search feature and look at all the speaker recommendations over the past year.

As far as my experiences, I like my Q Acoustics 3020 and 3090 center and they have excellent WAF (my girlfriend likes them) but they don’t campare to my Canton Vento 820.2. Maybe the Canton Chrono series would be an option from accessories for less. It’s a step below Vento. In any case Black Friday is around the corner so it makes sense to wait for that if you can. Good luck!

Thanks for your input I'll keep an eye on deals this Black Friday but after listening to the Elac B6.2 all day yesterday I can tell you one thing it can rival Kef LS50 for vocals its unbelievable for what it offers at CAD 370. I think the LS50 and Q150s are more musical but if HT is your game Elacs are a better option, beautiful imaging and vocal clarity.

 

[snakeeyes]

Thanks for your input I'll keep an eye on deals this Black Friday but after listening to the Elac B6.2 all day yesterday I can tell you one thing it can rival Kef LS50 for vocals its unbelievable for what it offers at CAD 370. I think the LS50 and Q150s are more musical but if HT is your game Elacs are a better option, beautiful imaging and vocal clarity.

Ya you said your percentages were favoring HT so maybe the Elacs? Or are you starting to listen to more music now?

 

[aim1861]

Ya you said your percentages were favoring HT so maybe the Elacs? Or are you starting to listen to more music now?

Hahaha no not much music for me but because I got KEF Q150s for $100 less than the ELACs I might keep them plus it comes in white WAF is way higher than ELACs.

Still a few days of listening giving ELACs a lil time to break-in.

 

[snakeeyes]

Hahaha no not much music for me but because I got KEF Q150s for $100 less than the ELACs I might keep them plus it comes in white WAF is way higher than ELACs.

Still a few days of listening giving ELACs a lil time to break-in.

You staying 2.1 or going 3.1? The center channel does a major percentage of the sound in 3.1 of course.

 

[aim1861]

You staying 2.1 or going 3.1? The center channel does a major percentage of the sound in 3.1 of course.

Okay so here is the plan... Because I am enjoying beautiful imaging with these speakers I'll do with 2.0 for now.

But down the line I was thinking ELAC Uni-fi LCR and invest in a nice sub as everyone suggested.

 

[aim1861]

After listening to the Elacs B6.2s and Kef150s side by side the whole day I feel for less acoustically corrected rooms Elacs may give you better sound for the money, they sounded full bodied in comparison to Kef150s and much more balanced specially at the top end, more noticeable when playing through spotify or other streaming platforms.

Unless one gets a crazy deal on Kef150s like $40-50 lower than the Elacs, its not worth it if you are using your speakers for mostly HT and TV. I felt Elacs do much better job with vocals and imaging. I like them better for music too specially if you are into EDM, Hip Hop, R&B kinda stuff but those front ports blow a lot of air in your face

Also noticed with my Denon AVR, zone2 audio quality is not the same as main dunno why is that?

 

[lovinthehd]

Also noticed with my Denon AVR, zone2 audio quality is not the same as main dunno why is that?

Can you be more specific? It may not enjoy the same dsp....

 

[aim1861]

Can you be more specific? It may not enjoy the same dsp....

I dont think its the dsp, I was playing main and zone 2 on direct and pure direct mode which in my knowledge bypasses all dsp. I felt the volume of Zone 2 was a db or two less, I did not have equipments to measure the exact difference but it was noticeable.

Whenever you drive more than two channels the volume drops. I dont know what kind of volume one can expect from these AVRs running 7.1 or 5.1.2

 

[lovinthehd]

I dont think its the dsp, I was playing main and zone 2 on direct and pure direct mode which in my knowledge bypasses all dsp. I felt the volume of Zone 2 was a db or two less, I did not have equipments to measure the exact difference but it was noticeable.

Whenever you drive more than two channels the volume drops. I dont know what kind of volume one can expect from these AVRs running 7.1 or 5.1.2

Could be a level difference, but the zone 2 isn't really intended for use in the same room as main zone but you'd really need to measure to be sure. Power supplies in avrs can be a limiting factor, though, as is evident in ACD bench testing but then again content doesn't generally require equal amplification across all channels either. Most avrs tend to be within 1-2 dB of each other in any case. If amplification is an issue get an avr with pre-outs so you can add external amps....

 

[aim1861]

Could be a level difference, but the zone 2 isn't really intended for use in the same room as main zone but you'd really need to measure to be sure. Power supplies in avrs can be a limiting factor, though, as is evident in ACD bench testing but then again content doesn't generally require equal amplification across all channels either. Most avrs tend to be within 1-2 dB of each other in any case. If amplification is an issue get an avr with pre-outs so you can add external amps....

I agree but when I tried using 4 speakers in 4.0 the volume dropped for sure. Also I am noticing the Elacs B6.2s sound louder than Kef Q150s at same volume level.

 

[lovinthehd]

I agree but when I tried using 4 speakers in 4.0 the volume dropped for sure. Also I am noticing the Elacs B6.2s sound louder than Kef Q150s at same volume level.

Did you calibrate the speakers to account for their sensitivity and distance from your seat with Audyssey? There really isn't a 4.0 mode, do you mean multi-ch stereo or was it a surround format? Surrounds aren't generally going to play at the same levels as mains.