Monitors or Full Size Spekers

[Chipbyrd]

I am relatively new to higher end audio. *I am curious what advantages/disadvantaged there are to having a monitor plus subs versus a full range/size speaker. *Assuming you were going to spend $5000 for speakers, would you spend:

1) $1600 on two Rythmic F15's + $3400 on a pair of monitors.
2) $2200 on one Seaton + $2800 on a pair monitors.
3) $5000 on full range.

Not so concerned with the brand of subs at this point. *It's more a question of two good musical subs or one really good musical sub. *No HT. *Music only. *Room is about 2700 cubic feet. *Musical preference is big band, jazz, classic rock.

I know that ultimately I will choose what sounds best to me, but I would appreciate the opinions of those who have previously thought through these options.

Thanks for your opinions.

 

[monkish54]

I would go with 2 Rythmic F15 (or similar priced offerings) and a pair of these

You would essentially have the Revel Salon 2 with a pair of kickass subs.

OR

I would do the subs plus a pair of these

There is a definite advantage to having multiple subs. It will smooth out the LF in-room FR.

Whether you go monitor or full-range isn't really a big deal. It depends specifically on which loudspeaker we are discussing. Either of the above options would make a kickass system. Personally, since there are so many great "low-cost" options for speakers right now, I would keep your multiple sub idea, and buy a less expensive speaker...such as the options I suggested above.

 

[Steve81]

I would tend to opt for a "sub/sat" type system, with the caveat that the "sat" be reasonably capable of the output levels desired without strain.

Multiple subs vs a single really depends on what kind of in room response you're getting at the listening position. As has already been noted, multiples can help smooth out modal response across multiple positions. However, if you're only concerned about one listening position, its quite possible with a little experimentation and EQ you can find a suitable spot to pop a single sub that would get the job done.

Edit: Probably also worth noting that something like a Seaton SubM is going to be wasted on jazz, big band, and classic rock. For most reasonable (and even getting into unreasonable) levels, a single Rythmik F12 would probably do just dandy.

 

[ratm]

Its very rare, if ever, that one can find a better all around sub than the SubM. Eventually I will own one, but if I had 5 grand to spend, I would do...

One SubM and two of these Focal

or these Ascend Not monitors but highly recommended over on AVS.

or these Salk

If you are concerned with getting a flat FR from your sub, then I would go with Dual Epik Empires They have been getting a little bad PR lately because of some CS issues, but I love mine. I cant wait to I get a 2nd and they are built like a complete tank.

But man, I'd love to get my hands on a SubM

 

[ratm]

Edit: Probably also worth noting that something like a Seaton SubM is going to be wasted on jazz, big band, and classic rock.

Ive never heard that before, why do you think that?

 

[Steve81]

Ive never heard that before, why do you think that?

None of those genres really tend to require a subwoofer of that caliber. That's not a knock against the SubM; I imagine it would do quite well on anything you tossed its way. It's just that there's not a lot of use for a subwoofer that can dig down to 10Hz or below and deliver 120+dB of output in room if you're playing a little Miles Davis, Glenn Miller, or The Beatles. Under most circumstances, I'd expect a Rythmik F12 could handle that with aplomb and for much less cost.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If I had $5K to spend from scratch, I would get one Funk 18.0 TSAD18v1 unpowered Sub for $1900 delivered to USA, and spend the $3100+ on a used excellent condition/ dealer demo KEF Reference 201/2. Of course, I would try to match the color of the KEF and Funk as much as possible.

Not trying to make a point or anything (lord knows ), but did you guys know that the $15,000 Focal Utopia III Subwoofer is unpowered ?

Man, my twisted brain is thinking, "How cool it would be to have a pair of Focal Utopia Diablo monitors plus dual matching Focal Utopia Subs."

$15K for a sub is a little overpriced though. Would love to be damn rich.

BTW, I know the KEF 201/2 satin finish dealer cost is $3K/pr new. KEF has been known to also give dealers an additional 10% off, so probably $2700/pr new dealer cost. Demo price is 15% off new cost, so $2550/pr. So even if a dealer sells a demo pair for $3050, he is making a $500 quick profit.

 

[ratm]

None of those genres really tend to require a subwoofer of that caliber. That's not a knock against the SubM; I imagine it would do quite well on anything you tossed its way. It's just that there's not a lot of use for a subwoofer that can dig down to 10Hz or below and deliver 120+dB of output in room if you're playing a little Miles Davis, Glenn Miller, or The Beatles. Under most circumstances, I'd expect a Rythmik F12 could handle that with aplomb and for much less cost.

makes sense

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

two of these Focal

I bet you can get another 10% off the 1007be, so $1800/pr.

I also bet you can get the Focal 1027be w/ additional 10% off = $3,000/pr. Add a Funk 18.0 sub, oh yeah.

BTW, the new Focal 1028be is like $9,000 and new 1008be is like $5500. So great savings on the 1007be and 1027be.

The Phil3, Salk towers, Ascend towers are also good options.

I think some dealers are selling the PSB Synchrony 2 towers for $2K, also good option.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I would go with 2 Rythmic F15 (or similar priced offerings) and a pair of these

You would essentially have the Revel Salon 2 with a pair of kickass subs.

It is highly unlikely that the JBLs will sound like Salon 2s. They have different cabinets, with completely different shapes, housing completely different drivers, using a different crossover network. What is the similarity other than they are made by the same company?

 

[bikemig]

I am relatively new to higher end audio. *I am curious what advantages/disadvantaged there are to having a monitor plus subs versus a full range/size speaker. *Assuming you were going to spend $5000 for speakers, would you spend:

1) $1600 on two Rythmic F15's + $3400 on a pair of monitors.
2) $2200 on one Seaton + $2800 on a pair monitors.
3) $5000 on full range.

Not so concerned with the brand of subs at this point. *It's more a question of two good musical subs or one really good musical sub. *No HT. *Music only. *Room is about 2700 cubic feet. *Musical preference is big band, jazz, classic rock.

I know that ultimately I will choose what sounds best to me, but I would appreciate the opinions of those who have previously thought through these options.

Thanks for your opinions.

Personally I'd get full range speakers rather than a bookshelf sat combo for music only. There are very few 2 channel amps and/or receivers that have bass management. You could, of course, rely on the sub for bass management. But it adds a level of complexity that simply isn't, in my opinion, needed. And at the end of the day, you may not be that happy with the result. It is a lot easier to dial in full range speakers and you will end up putting your money where it counts the most for music.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

Personally I'd get full range speakers rather than a bookshelf sat combo for music only. There are very few 2 channel amps and/or receivers that have bass management. You could, of course, rely on the sub for bass management. But it adds a level of complexity that simply isn't, in my opinion, needed. And at the end of the day, you may not be that happy with the result. It is a lot easier to dial in full range speakers and you will end up putting your money where it counts the most for music.

I am facing a similar dilemma as the OP, although in the $2-3,000 range. My receiver, the HK3490, has sub outs but no bass management. So, I am probably going to get towers, not sub/sat combo. I generally like the sound of music better from towers, but I have started to become addicted to low bass from watching movies in my other room with a sub. So now towers seems a little light on the low freq stuff. Still, that is probably the way I am going to go.

 

[shadyJ]

I would go with 2 Rythmic F15 (or similar priced offerings) and a pair of these

I like this idea. Except I might spring for some subs that can keep up with those monitors when the volume is turned up, so I would go for some FV15HPs or something of that caliber. Those monitors will go way beyond what a couple of modestly powered, sealed 15"s can produce.

 

[josko]

I have a set of two full-sized speakers (B&W802D) and a sub (SVS SB13) and I find that for most music, I prefer not to turn the sub on. I find that (with the type of music I tend to listen to), there's just not that much content below the speaker lower cutoff (35Hz), and the sub just seems to somehow 'muddle up' the sound.
So here's a vote for a pair of full-sized speakers and no sub.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have a set of two full-sized speakers (B&W802D) and a sub (SVS SB13) and I find that for most music, I prefer not to turn the sub on. I find that (with the type of music I tend to listen to), there's just not that much content below the speaker lower cutoff (35Hz), and the sub just seems to somehow 'muddle up' the sound.
So here's a vote for a pair of full-sized speakers and no sub.

I use dual Funk 18.0 subs for even Beethoven when listening to my 802D2 or Salon2. I find the subs improve the SQ.

Everyone is different.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

I use dual Funk 18.0 subs for even Beethoven when listening to my 802D2 or Salon2. I find the subs improve the SQ.

Everyone is different.

What do you use for bass management and how low is your crossover set?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What do you use for bass management and how low is your crossover set?

Denon AVP-A1HDCI. Speakers set to Small, XO set to 80 Hz. Stereo 2.2 mode. RC/EQ/DSP bypassed/ turned off.

 

[Steve81]

There are very few 2 channel amps and/or receivers that have bass management.

It's a little sad IMO. I mean, for not too much money, one can get a receiver with seven channels of amplification, bass management, room correction software, HDMI inputs and outputs, and a billion other features. If you want that with just two channels of amplification, you're out of luck. OTOH, there's nothing wrong with using a 7 channel receiver for just 2 channels either.

You could, of course, rely on the sub for bass management. But it adds a level of complexity that simply isn't, in my opinion, needed.

What's worse here is that I can't even think of that many subs that have really credible bass management. Yeah, you'll find plenty with an adjustable low pass, and maybe in that group, some that have a high pass output that's usually fixed around 80Hz. But lets face it, that pales next to what even an entry level HT receiver can do. Of course, that's exactly why there's not much point in putting many options on a subwoofer in the first place from a manufacturers perspective.

It is a lot easier to dial in full range speakers and you will end up putting your money where it counts the most for music.

There's the problem though: you don't have many tools at your disposal to dial it in. It's easy because there's not a heck of a lot you can do. You might be able to fiddle with placement a little bit, but you're still constrained by how placement will impact other aspects of performance. That's not to say you can't get good results with 2.0, but it comes down to a bit of luck.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

Denon AVP-A1HDCI. Speakers set to Small, XO set to 80 Hz. Stereo 2.2 mode. RC/EQ/DSP bypassed/ turned off.

Thanks for the info. That is an impressive beast of a preamp..the back panel is ridiculous!

I guess I'm my situation I will start off with the HK and towers, no sub. Down the road I can always upgrade the preamp and add a sub if I need to.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Thanks for the info. That is an impressive beast of a preamp..the back panel is ridiculous!

I guess in my situation I will start off with the HK and towers, no sub. Down the road I can always upgrade the preamp and add a sub if I need to.

Nothing wrong with that.