How many of us use separate speakers for music?

[lsiberian]

Music vs Home Theater

I just wonder if in reality the best music speakers to our ears really make the best theater speakers.

Example.

For movies I really loved my betas. They just rocked the house. Had great dialogue and amazing effects.

But on music I prefer the sound of KEFs they sound fuller. Yet on a movie they seem to fall short on the effects. They are good, but not as good. As the beta's.

I wonder if you all have similar experiences.

I know most of our topics are for advice this is for your thoughts and opinions.

 

[jostenmeat]

Yep, I have two systems. Ok, I believe that for a particular budget that is not sky high, one could choose differently, depending if the use is for music or HT.

I know there are some posters here who avidly believe that if a speaker is good for one, then it is forcibly good for the other. I would believe the same in an ideal world, with the ideal speaker. If you've ever priced the ideal speaker, then you would know it's not very cheap.

I use ML Summits for music listening. They were my favorite speakers that I auditioned, of many, and that includes a couple of pairs in the 50k-100k range.

They kinda suck for HT for a few reasons, though other users love them just fine for the application. They need considerable distance from the front wall (reducing the possible screen size). They are beamy, and force a small sweetspot of a listening area. Welp, I have 2 rows of 4. They are light-reflective in nature, and are distracting for a FP setup. Sure, this could be avoided with an acoustically transparent screen, but you get the point. They will compress more quickly in the upper registers at anything close to movie theater volumes.

For the HT, I use PSB's, and they are just one notch above the bottom of the line, and they work much better than my stereo speakers costing so much more for my very particular application.

Well, those are my experiences. If I had B&W 800Ds, I'd really have no need for two systems. However, with that kind of investment on speakers, I would obviously setup the HT with audio as a first priority, and that would force either an AT screen, or at the very least, a screen that would be a small fraction of the size that I have, atm. Well, I guess the last statement is irrelevant to the thread, but I wanted to say it.

I do think, or I should say "guess", that +90% of folks would love my PSBs for both applications. The comparative lack of resolution does not appear so easily until one listens to good classical recordings on them, IMO, and I would say that less than 10% of the population would listen to such a thing.

 

[highfigh]

Another question that may be good for another thread is whether people who have a receiver/processor that can save more than one EQ/Audyssey (or similar) setup use a separate one for music and another for movies.

I use one pair but I don't have a surround system because the vast majority of my system use is for music. One thing that makes them really well suited for TV/movies is the fact that they're about as natural sounding as I think I have heard for human voice, so that lends a lot of realism.

 

[ski2xblack]

Hmm...my preference for music vs. HT more regards amps than speakers; SS for HT, tubes for music. My M&K's in the HT are pretty adept at both music and movies, though.

 

[davidtwotrees]

My wall is pretty well packed with home theatre/stereo gear. The Canton's I have seem to do both pretty well, although I listen to music more than I watch movies. If I had room and money, I would love to have dedicated rooms. I would love to do tubes and analog for two channel. Oh well, this is my life and I am happy with my rig.

 

[tom67]

Good post.....recently found my solution. I have old Klipsch RB5 bookshelf units with RC3 center and RS rears....I bought two Paradigm Studio 20s last year and frankly did not like them with HT....I do like them better for music and recently just placed them next to the Klipsch fronts on the "B" speaker setting and use them for music only....perfect solution for me. I'm glad I didnt buy the Paradigm center and rears now....

 

[Highbar]

I think my sig speaks for itself. I've got two different setups in the same small space and love it. I know the 11's aren't the greatest speakers on the planet but I like them for music with the Rotel and I don't need a sub with them. Now with the x series for movies it's closer than the old JBL HTIB speakers but still not as nice as the 11's. I think I'm hooked on two different setups

 

[BadAsCan]

IMO Get a 2-channel receiver along with an EQ and hook them up to the KEF's and stop wondering. Leave the betas on the HT. Don't choose favorites, put them where they belong.

 

[The Dukester]

I use two seperate systems for HT and stereo. My stereo setup is a Mac 4100 receiver with a sep MC352 amp and Mac XRT20 speakers. My HT uses a Yamaha 3800 with RBH 1044, 44 and 414SE speakers at present. I like my music in two channel for the most part and the RBHs can't keep up with the Macs.

If I could afford it, I would have more Macs to go along with the 20's for a HT or one for all setup, but I can't (or at least won't) spend that much plus my room won't allow it. The 20's are not shielded and my room is too small to move them out far enough.

That said, I do love the sound of my HT setup with concert DVDs in 7.1. HD DVDs like the Eagles, Cream and the DTS demo disc sound fantastic.

 

[cfrizz]

I just have one system since that is all I have room for. However, I do believe if you get speakers that focus on music first, they will do just fine for HT as well.

Also it helps to have a killer center channel if you have beefy mains, why would you want a wimpy little center channel when 99% of the movies play through your center channel.

And it is also important to make sure you have enough power to drive all of the speakers to their full potential.

 

[Adam]

I use two different systems, but that's just because of location. I watch TV and movies in my living room, and I listen to music mostly in my office (or car). My office just has cheapo computer speakers, but that's fine for me. When I do on occasion listen to music out in my living room, it really knocks my socks off.

I agree with Cathy and others - if your speakers are good for music, then I believe that they'll be good for home theater (provided that they can handle the bass or that you have a sub or four).

 

[Mike19]

My Polk M50s and Dali Ikon 6s (which cost almost 5 times more than the 50s) sound the same in my 7.1 system driven by Onk 805. Put them in my computer stereo system driven by a Parasound 2100 pre and an Aragon 4004 MKII amp (200w @ 8ohms) and the Dalis kill the Polks.

Mike

 

[Pyrrho]

I use the same speakers for both (Aurum Cantus Leisure 2SE [original U.S. version]). The only way I would want different would be if I were going to go with something that wasn't a bookshelf speaker for my stereo in my living room (the Aurum Cantus Music Goddess would be nice; it, however, uses the same tweeter and basically the same mid-bass driver as the Leisure 2SE, and adds a woofer for deeper bass).

Given the fact that a speaker is supposed to reproduce what is fed into it, an ideal speaker will be ideal for both uses. With home theater, one typically uses a subwoofer, so one can often use bookshelf speakers and get full range sound. But other than that, I want the same qualities in both situations.

 

[lsiberian]

IMO Get a 2-channel receiver along with an EQ and hook them up to the KEF's and stop wondering. Leave the betas on the HT. Don't choose favorites, put them where they belong.

I no longer own the Betas. See my signature for my next front speakers.

 

[lsiberian]

I use the same speakers for both (Aurum Cantus Leisure 2SE [original U.S. version]). The only way I would want different would be if I were going to go with something that wasn't a bookshelf speaker for my stereo in my living room (the Aurum Cantus Music Goddess would be nice; it, however, uses the same tweeter and basically the same mid-bass driver as the Leisure 2SE, and adds a woofer for deeper bass).

Given the fact that a speaker is supposed to reproduce what is fed into it, an ideal speaker will be ideal for both uses. With home theater, one typically uses a subwoofer, so one can often use bookshelf speakers and get full range sound. But other than that, I want the same qualities in both situations.

I get what your saying, but it seems some folks just prefer different sound for both. Like my previous speakers where amazing for home theater because they could go very deep for bookshelves. While my current speakers are better for music because they have flatter in room response and a warmer sound IMO. That being said. I'm sure with enough money one could eliminate the need for both,

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If I were rich I would have 10 different rooms & 10 different speaker systems.

But since I'm not rich, I think it's best to have one speaker system that does well for both music & movies - quality over quantity.

In my experience, speakers that do well for music will also do well for movies.

So when I audition for speakers, I make sure they sound great for both music & movies.