$5000 budget thought experiment. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 03:31 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
hemants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11

Assuming you have a very good subwoofer, would you rather have for a 5 speaker system

 

1. 5x$1000 speakers

 

or

 

2. $3000 fronts, $1000 center, $500 surrounds

 

I'm guessing 2 would sound better overall but I'd like to hear other opinions.

hemants is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 03:38 PM
Member
 
psycholis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Unless you listen to 5 channel sacds or something similiar, go big in the front.

Marantz SR-5007
Klipsch WF-35, WC-24, WB-14
Klipsch RW-12D
LG 55LN5600
Sony PS3, Xbox 360, Wii U
psycholis is offline  
post #3 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 04:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 258

You need to be more specific in your question, as the particular speakers selected at those prices would likely impact the answer.

 

I personally like having identical bookshelf speakers for all channels (other than subwoofer, obviously).  Since I use subwoofers, the main channel speakers do not need to be able to handle any deep bass, so there is no point in spending extra money for adding that capability.  If you use different speakers for the different positions, they will sound different (and if they all sounded the same, it would make the most sense to buy the cheaper ones for all of the positions, as the more expensive ones would mean wasted money, if, again, they all sounded the same).  This means that when a sound pans from one channel to another, it will be slightly altered, whereas with identical speakers, it is only the position that is altered.  Of course, the different position in your room will sound different, but there would be added to that whatever difference there is in the sound of the different speakers, if you use different speakers.

 

What many people do is buy bass capability in their front right and left speakers that they either do not use, because they properly use bass management, or they effectively eliminate the really deep bass in those channels by running them full range instead of sending the deep bass to the subwoofer.  The first of these wastes money, as they are not using the capability that they paid extra to get, and the second degrades the sound by eliminating the deep bass from the front right and left channels.

 

So, what I would likely do with $5k for the 5.0 channels is to buy $1k each bookshelf speakers for all channels, and let the subwoofer handle the bass.


God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
post #4 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 04:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
zieglj01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,859
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 351 Post(s)
Liked: 460
It all depends on design and engineering of the speaker as a whole, and not a certain
price point. Also, knowing how to fish is a good way to shop

I can get a former $2,600 5.0 system, (bookshelf or wall-mount option) for $1,130 >
Plus, the 5.0 speakers do have good power handling >> Mate that with a real good
subwoofer or 2, and it will be a solid option.

Why spend extra, when there is no guarantee at a higer price point.

__________________________________________
Who and Where - is the Way, the Truth and the Life?

Speakers > MB Quart VS05, Boston VS260, Snell K7
Subwoofer > Mordaunt Short Aviano 7
Receiver > Tascam PAR-200, Pioneer VSX-30
zieglj01 is online now  
post #5 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 04:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Hopinater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 503

Without over analyzing this and just going with a quick and dirty answer I personally would go with option 2. Of course there are exceptions to everything.

Hopinater is offline  
post #6 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 04:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
I would put far more money into the front channels regardless if they are for MC music or movies. Here is why:

1. Human hearing is front centric. We are much more critical of sound coming from in front of us than behind us.

2. In movies, most of the content will be coming from the front three channels. Surround channels get substantially less content than the front three. What is sent to the surround channel is more of sound effects or ambient sound. Rare is it that you will have content that requires exact timbre matching from front to rear.

3. With MC music, I don't find timbre matching all that critical either as what you hear beside or behind you will not be the same as what is in front of you any way. For example, for orchestral music, the violins might be coming from the front left speaker and the cello coming from your right surround. Even if the speakers weren't timbre matched you wouldn't be able to tell as they are not playing the same sound.
duc135 is online now  
post #7 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 04:47 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
hemants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
 

You need to be more specific in your question, as the particular speakers selected at those prices would likely impact the answer.

 

I personally like having identical bookshelf speakers for all channels (other than subwoofer, obviously).  Since I use subwoofers, the main channel speakers do not need to be able to handle any deep bass, so there is no point in spending extra money for adding that capability.  If you use different speakers for the different positions, they will sound different (and if they all sounded the same, it would make the most sense to buy the cheaper ones for all of the positions, as the more expensive ones would mean wasted money, if, again, they all sounded the same).  This means that when a sound pans from one channel to another, it will be slightly altered, whereas with identical speakers, it is only the position that is altered.  Of course, the different position in your room will sound different, but there would be added to that whatever difference there is in the sound of the different speakers, if you use different speakers.

 

What many people do is buy bass capability in their front right and left speakers that they either do not use, because they properly use bass management, or they effectively eliminate the really deep bass in those channels by running them full range instead of sending the deep bass to the subwoofer.  The first of these wastes money, as they are not using the capability that they paid extra to get, and the second degrades the sound by eliminating the deep bass from the front right and left channels.

 

So, what I would likely do with $5k for the 5.0 channels is to buy $1k each bookshelf speakers for all channels, and let the subwoofer handle the bass.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought most modern receivers allow you to specify different crossover points for each channel.  ie. In option 2 you might set the surround crossover to 80hz whereas for Left and Fight fronts you might set it to 45hz.  But below 45hz the sub would still take over.

hemants is offline  
post #8 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 05:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mark62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: N.W. Pa.
Posts: 1,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemants View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought most modern receivers allow you to specify different crossover points for each channel.  ie. In option 2 you might set the surround crossover to 80hz whereas for Left and Fight fronts you might set it to 45hz.  But below 45hz the sub would still take over.

that is what he is trying to say, even if the tower L/R's claim 45hz, they wont do it as effectively as a sub does if you set the crossover to 80hz.
mark62 is offline  
post #9 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 05:40 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
hemants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark62 View Post


that is what he is trying to say, even if the tower L/R's claim 45hz, they wont do it as effectively as a sub does if you set the crossover to 80hz.

 

Hasn't been my observation with music listening.  I think a good pair  speakers that go down to 35 hz will sound better in the 40hz-80hz range than a sub.   For explosions and such it may be a different story.

hemants is offline  
post #10 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 05:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mark62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: N.W. Pa.
Posts: 1,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemants View Post

Hasn't been my observation with music listening.  I think a good pair  speakers that go down to 35 hz will sound better in the 40hz-80hz range than a sub.   For explosions and such it may be a different story.

not if you have a GOOD sub setup PROPERLY. The caps are for the importance not being offensive. however there are times i prefer to listen to my towers without the sub.
mark62 is offline  
post #11 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 06:06 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
hemants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark62 View Post


not if you have a GOOD sub setup PROPERLY. The caps are for the importance not being offensive. however there are times i prefer to listen to my towers without the sub.

Ok, let's take the crossover part of the equation out and compromise and say you are crossing all speakers over at 60hz.

 

Let's also assume that all 5 speakers are bookshelf that can easily go down to 60.

 

Would you still spend equal money on all 5 or spend more up front?

 

I think I'd still lean towards the latter.

hemants is offline  
post #12 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 06:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mark62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: N.W. Pa.
Posts: 1,409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemants View Post

Ok, let's take the crossover part of the equation out and compromise and say you are crossing all speakers over at 60hz.

Let's also assume that all 5 speakers are bookshelf that can easily go down to 60.

Would you still spend equal money on all 5 or spend more up front?

I think I'd still lean towards the latter.

still crossover at 80hz.

That to me is really debatable. I think I would go for the more $ up front because that is a nice budget but of course not cheap out on the rears , but you will hear arguments either way.

You also would want a sub right? for 2 nice subs figure about $1000

example...

http://www.svsound.com/subwoofers/ported-box/PB-1000#.UuMYXpAo6GQ
mark62 is offline  
post #13 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 06:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
zieglj01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,859
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 351 Post(s)
Liked: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemants View Post

Ok, let's take the crossover part of the equation out and compromise and say you are crossing all speakers over at 60hz.

Let's also assume that all 5 speakers are bookshelf that can easily go down to 60. Would you still spend equal money on all 5 or spend more up front?
I think I'd still lean towards the latter.

I still do not try to perceive sound based on a selling price - also, a speaker with good bass,
and weak mids and a harsh treble - is still a poor speaker to me.

I would spend more on the front 3 - since surround tends to be mainly sound effects.

__________________________________________
Who and Where - is the Way, the Truth and the Life?

Speakers > MB Quart VS05, Boston VS260, Snell K7
Subwoofer > Mordaunt Short Aviano 7
Receiver > Tascam PAR-200, Pioneer VSX-30
zieglj01 is online now  
post #14 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 07:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemants View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
 

You need to be more specific in your question, as the particular speakers selected at those prices would likely impact the answer.

 

I personally like having identical bookshelf speakers for all channels (other than subwoofer, obviously).  Since I use subwoofers, the main channel speakers do not need to be able to handle any deep bass, so there is no point in spending extra money for adding that capability.  If you use different speakers for the different positions, they will sound different (and if they all sounded the same, it would make the most sense to buy the cheaper ones for all of the positions, as the more expensive ones would mean wasted money, if, again, they all sounded the same).  This means that when a sound pans from one channel to another, it will be slightly altered, whereas with identical speakers, it is only the position that is altered.  Of course, the different position in your room will sound different, but there would be added to that whatever difference there is in the sound of the different speakers, if you use different speakers.

 

What many people do is buy bass capability in their front right and left speakers that they either do not use, because they properly use bass management, or they effectively eliminate the really deep bass in those channels by running them full range instead of sending the deep bass to the subwoofer.  The first of these wastes money, as they are not using the capability that they paid extra to get, and the second degrades the sound by eliminating the deep bass from the front right and left channels.

 

So, what I would likely do with $5k for the 5.0 channels is to buy $1k each bookshelf speakers for all channels, and let the subwoofer handle the bass.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought most modern receivers allow you to specify different crossover points for each channel.  ie. In option 2 you might set the surround crossover to 80hz whereas for Left and Fight fronts you might set it to 45hz.  But below 45hz the sub would still take over.

 

So you set the crossovers however you want.  The point is, if the speakers are different, then the sound is different.  The front three speakers should be identical for ideal performance.  Pretty much no one disagrees with that, do they?  Would you use a different speaker for the front right and left channels?  Or are you going to tell me you don't need identical speakers for the front right and left?  If those need to match, then the center also needs to match, or there will be the same problem that you will have from having the right and left front speakers not matching.

 

Also, if your subwoofer can handle everything below 80 Hz, if you buy front right and left speakers that can be dealing with lower frequencies, you are paying for lower frequency performance that you don't need.  After all, according to YOU, the subwoofer is perfectly capable of handling the frequencies below 80 Hz; otherwise, there is a problem with sending the sound from ANY channel to the subwoofer below 80 Hz.  So you are wasting money on bass performance of the front right and left channels that, according to YOU, you don't need.

 

So, either the subwoofer is capable of bass below a given frequency (you have stated 80 Hz, but what frequency it is is immaterial for the general point), or it is not. If it is, then buying other speakers capable of bass below those frequencies is unnecessary, and any extra money spent on that is a TOTAL waste; if it is not capable of those frequencies, then you had better not send those frequencies from ANY channel to it.

 

So, please tell me, which is it?  Is your idea crap because the subwoofer cannot properly deal with 80 Hz and below, or is it crap because you are suggesting that people waste money on main channel speakers to make them capable of reproducing the frequencies that, according to you, the subwoofer is perfectly capable of reproducing?


God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
post #15 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 08:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Hopinater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 503

Personally I have to say I like towers but I can't give a better reason other than I like the way they look much more than bookshelves. Perhaps the larger enclosure also adds something to the sound quality but that is very debatable. 

 

Having said that, IMO a good subwoofer (and I stress a GOOD subwoofer properly set up) can play bass better than a tower speaker. I know the music listening audiophiles might argue that point but since sound is subjective we can simply agree to disagree. 

Hopinater is offline  
post #16 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 08:08 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
hemants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
 

Also, if your subwoofer can handle everything below 80 Hz, if you buy front right and left speakers that can be dealing with lower frequencies, you are paying for lower frequency performance that you don't need.  After all, according to YOU, the subwoofer is perfectly capable of handling the frequencies below 80 Hz; otherwise, there is a problem with sending the sound from ANY channel to the subwoofer below 80 Hz.  So you are wasting money on bass performance of the front right and left channels that, according to YOU, you don't need.

 

 

 

I think you are creating a false 'binary' here.  If a $300 speaker can 'handle' the entire frequency spectrum, why would anyone spend more money?  Just read the frequency response and the power handling and be done!

 

And in my second example, I took the sub question out of the equation.  Even between 80hz and 20000hz there are big sonic quality differences between speakers.   One can buy 5 average speakers, or one can buy 2-3 exceptional ones by saving money on the surrounds.

hemants is offline  
post #17 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 08:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopinater View Post
 

Personally I have to say I like towers but I can't give a better reason other than I like the way they look much more than bookshelves. ...

 

If you buy something because it is pretty, that is a fine thing.  As long as one does not pretend that it is something else, like the way it sounds.  Certainly, people do sometimes pay extra for a good finish to a speaker than they might otherwise have at the normal price.  As long as the person buys it for its looks, and is not delusional in thinking that the veneer on the cabinet will matter for the sound, there is nothing amiss.

 

But, of course, being delusional is a problem, so that buying the pretty thing and confusing its prettiness with its sound is a problem.  I will leave it to others to explain why that is a problem, if anyone finds it necessary to have an explanation.


God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
post #18 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 08:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post

So, please tell me, which is it?  Is your idea crap because the subwoofer cannot properly deal with 80 Hz and below, or is it crap because you are suggesting that people waste money on main channel speakers to make them capable of reproducing the frequencies that, according to you, the subwoofer is perfectly capable of reproducing?

I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but paying more for the front three channels is, IMO, more than just about playing low. It's about getting a better speaker all around. Forget about budget for now and ask yourself would you get a Revel Gem2 bookshelf speakers or some Polk Audio LSiM707 floorstanding speakers? For the reasons I had stated above, I would allocate much more money for the front three (two actually, since I lean much more heavily towards 2CH music) than I would for the remaining two channels.
duc135 is online now  
post #19 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 08:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopinater View Post

Personally I have to say I like towers but I can't give a better reason other than I like the way they look much more than bookshelves. Perhaps the larger enclosure also adds something to the sound quality but that is very debatable. 

Having said that, IMO a good subwoofer (and I stress a GOOD subwoofer properly set up) can play bass better than a tower speaker. I know the music listening audiophiles might argue that point but since sound is subjective we can simply agree to disagree. 

I'm with you on all accounts. I also would never buy bookshelf speakers as I do not like the way they look. I could have spent only a third the price on my current front setup as I already have multiple very capable subs, but there's just the aesthetic thing for me. It's just a bonus for me that my towers can play full range for my 90% of my music listening so I don't need to turn on all my amps for my subs.
duc135 is online now  
post #20 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 08:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Hopinater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
 

 

If you buy something because it is pretty, that is a fine thing.  As long as one does not pretend that it is something else, like the way it sounds.  Certainly, people do sometimes pay extra for a good finish to a speaker than they might otherwise have at the normal price.  As long as the person buys it for its looks, and is not delusional in thinking that the veneer on the cabinet will matter for the sound, there is nothing amiss.

 

But, of course, being delusional is a problem, so that buying the pretty thing and confusing its prettiness with its sound is a problem.  I will leave it to others to explain why that is a problem, if anyone finds it necessary to have an explanation.

No arguments here. And you have a good point about price. Some people buy simple veneer finishes while others buy piano gloss simply for looks but they all sound the same. 

 

Having said that, the key to anyone enjoying their setup is that they like it. It doesn't matter what anyone else says about it. So I have no problem with people being delusional about their setups as long as they are happy. For instance I don't like HTIBs but I have a brother in law who has one and loves it. Far be it from me to steal his joy. I could tell him a lot of reasons as to why he shouldn't be satisfied, but why would I do that? So I don't see being delusional as a problem if the person is happy (as long as they don't argue with facts). 

Hopinater is offline  
post #21 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 09:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemants View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
 

Also, if your subwoofer can handle everything below 80 Hz, if you buy front right and left speakers that can be dealing with lower frequencies, you are paying for lower frequency performance that you don't need.  After all, according to YOU, the subwoofer is perfectly capable of handling the frequencies below 80 Hz; otherwise, there is a problem with sending the sound from ANY channel to the subwoofer below 80 Hz.  So you are wasting money on bass performance of the front right and left channels that, according to YOU, you don't need.

 

 

 

I think you are creating a false 'binary' here.  If a $300 speaker can 'handle' the entire frequency spectrum, why would anyone spend more money?  Just read the frequency response and the power handling and be done!

 

And in my second example, I took the sub question out of the equation.  Even between 80hz and 20000hz there are big sonic quality differences between speakers.   One can buy 5 average speakers, or one can buy 2-3 exceptional ones by saving money on the surrounds.

 

You are now using a false analogy.  No one has suggested that better speakers are not better.

 

If we look at what people typically do with this sort of budget, when they buy different speakers that cost dramatically different amounts, but are not totally stupid about it, they buy towers for the front, a specially designed center channel speaker (specially designed for its size, more than for its sound), and "voice matched" bookshelf speakers for the rear.  Now, either the speakers are really voice matched or they are not.  If they are, they have essentially the same sound quality (as that is what it means to be "voice matched"), and so the difference between them is their physical size and shape and how loud they can play and how deep they can go.

 

The alternative to that is buying 5 bookshelf speakers from a higher line.  The reason that this is the alternative is that tower speakers from the same line cost more, and if one does not buy them, one has more money to go to a higher line instead.  Here is an example of what I mean; one can buy this:

 

http://www.polkaudio.com/products/rtia9

 

or this:

 

http://www.polkaudio.com/products/lsim703

 

for the same amount of money.  To be sure, without a subwoofer, the first one is going to give you a more full range sound.  But with a subwoofer, you could instead choose the higher model at the second link and have a better sound and still get the full range (as the subwoofer is dealing with the deep bass).

 

Now, this is just one example, but it illustrates the point.  There are other brands, and other choices, and the general point is the same; you can get tower speakers from a cheaper line, or bookshelf speakers from a higher line.  If you go with bookshelf speakers, you can go with a higher model than you can go with when selecting a tower speaker, for the same amount of money.  You decide:  Do you want improved sound, or speakers that cover more of the frequency range than you need?  Perhaps those towers will also play louder (even when both have the bass filtered and sent to the subwoofer); would you rather have the ability to listen at literally deafening levels, or have better quality sound at sane levels?  I admit it is a choice.  But I don't think most people really think the matter through properly.

 

Also, we are dealing with a budget of $5k.  One can get really good bookshelf speakers for $1k each.  But if one insists on tower models for the front channels, one will have to drop down to a lower line.  Otherwise, the matching rear speakers are going to put one over budget.  That is, if the bookshelf speakers of a particular line are $1k, then the rear bookshelf speakers are $1k, not $500 to stay on budget (see opening post).


God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
post #22 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 09:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc135 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post

So, please tell me, which is it?  Is your idea crap because the subwoofer cannot properly deal with 80 Hz and below, or is it crap because you are suggesting that people waste money on main channel speakers to make them capable of reproducing the frequencies that, according to you, the subwoofer is perfectly capable of reproducing?

I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but paying more for the front three channels is, IMO, more than just about playing low. It's about getting a better speaker all around. Forget about budget for now and ask yourself would you get a Revel Gem2 bookshelf speakers or some Polk Audio LSiM707 floorstanding speakers? For the reasons I had stated above, I would allocate much more money for the front three (two actually, since I lean much more heavily towards 2CH music) than I would for the remaining two channels.

 

You obviously need to reread my posts in this thread, starting with the first one:

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1513913/5000-budget-thought-experiment/0_100#post_24261464

 

I advocate buying bookshelf speakers all around, as the subwoofer is going to be able to deal with the deep bass.  That way, one can go with a higher line of speaker than what one could get if one wastes money on tower speakers that are capable of deeper bass than is necessary in a system with a good subwoofer (as per the original question).  Since we are talking about $5k, this allows one to spend $1k per speaker, and one can get some nice bookshelf speakers for that amount of money.

 

Now, if the goal isn't surround sound, but just two channel, then obviously, it would not make sense to buy 5 speakers; one would instead want to put it all into 2 speakers. But that is not what is the implied goal suggested by the opening post.  If one wishes to maximize 2 channel sound, one ought not buy a center or rear channel speakers at all, and put all of one's speaker budget into front right and left.  So that gives us a budget of $2500 per speaker.  (And we still get a good subwoofer, as per the opening post.)

 

So, what is the goal?  Surround sound or two channel?  If the former, I stand by my original posts.  If the latter, then obviously, one should forget about the center and rear speakers at all, as they are just a waste when listening to just 2 channels.


God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
post #23 of 27 Old 01-24-2014, 09:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopinater View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
 

 

If you buy something because it is pretty, that is a fine thing.  As long as one does not pretend that it is something else, like the way it sounds.  Certainly, people do sometimes pay extra for a good finish to a speaker than they might otherwise have at the normal price.  As long as the person buys it for its looks, and is not delusional in thinking that the veneer on the cabinet will matter for the sound, there is nothing amiss.

 

But, of course, being delusional is a problem, so that buying the pretty thing and confusing its prettiness with its sound is a problem.  I will leave it to others to explain why that is a problem, if anyone finds it necessary to have an explanation.

No arguments here. And you have a good point about price. Some people buy simple veneer finishes while others buy piano gloss simply for looks but they all sound the same. 

 

Having said that, the key to anyone enjoying their setup is that they like it. It doesn't matter what anyone else says about it. So I have no problem with people being delusional about their setups as long as they are happy. For instance I don't like HTIBs but I have a brother in law who has one and loves it. Far be it from me to steal his joy. I could tell him a lot of reasons as to why he shouldn't be satisfied, but why would I do that? So I don't see being delusional as a problem if the person is happy (as long as they don't argue with facts). 

 

If delusional people bought what they wanted and shut up about it, I would likely agree with you.  The problem is, delusional people don't all keep their mouths shut and they often spew forth a good deal of nonsense about what sounds best.  And then they complain about someone pointing out their nonsense, saying that they have a right to pick what they want.  But that is them confusing two entirely different things.  They do have the right to pick what they want.  But they do not have the right to make ridiculous nonsensical claims publicly and not have other people point out that they are speaking nonsense.


God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
post #24 of 27 Old 01-25-2014, 12:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
duc135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post

You obviously need to reread my posts in this thread, starting with the first one:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1513913/5000-budget-thought-experiment/0_100#post_24261464

I advocate buying bookshelf speakers all around, as the subwoofer is going to be able to deal with the deep bass.  That way, one can go with a higher line of speaker than what one could get if one wastes money on tower speakers that are capable of deeper bass than is necessary in a system with a good subwoofer (as per the original question).  Since we are talking about $5k, this allows one to spend $1k per speaker, and one can get some nice bookshelf speakers for that amount of money.

Now, if the goal isn't surround sound, but just two channel, then obviously, it would not make sense to buy 5 speakers; one would instead want to put it all into 2 speakers. But that is not what is the implied goal suggested by the opening post.  If one wishes to maximize 2 channel sound, one ought not buy a center or rear channel speakers at all, and put all of one's speaker budget into front right and left.  So that gives us a budget of $2500 per speaker.  (And we still get a good subwoofer, as per the opening post.)

So, what is the goal?  Surround sound or two channel?  If the former, I stand by my original posts.  If the latter, then obviously, one should forget about the center and rear speakers at all, as they are just a waste when listening to just 2 channels.

Don't need to reread your posts. I know what you advocate. You advocate spreading the cost evenly across all five channels. I was merely stating that more money is not about just getting the speaker to dig deeper. It's about getting better sound. Hence my example of the Revel Gem2 as opposed to the Polk LSis. I stated I would go a step further and spend more on the fronts where better speakers will make a bigger difference. For a given budget I would go with rather go with higher end front stage + lower end surrounds vs. mid range products all around. Your argument is that why spend more money on towers that can produce the lower frequencies if they won't even be reproduced. Same argument for the surrounds. Why pay extra money for good surrounds when they have very minimal content relative to the fronts?

I can tell you from my experience, I don't notice if there is a timbre mismatch between my rear speakers as opposed to my front speakers that sell for at least 50x the cost of my rear. Now if I were to move them to the front and compare them with the same content in front of me, sure I can tell a difference. Once the sound is moved to the rear where there is minimal content and human hearing ability has dropped significantly, the differences are not audible to most. People talk about sound spanning from speaker to speaker should sound the same as to not cause a disconnect in the sound field. While this is true for sound spanning left to right this does not hold true (IMO) for sounds going front to back. The science of sound already states that sound coming from front to rear or vice versa will change in perceived pitch anyway (Doppler Effect) so timbre matching is not critical.
duc135 is online now  
post #25 of 27 Old 01-25-2014, 05:06 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
hemants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
 

 

You are now using a false analogy.  No one has suggested that better speakers are not better.

 

 

You seemed to be implying that better speakers are not better below 80hz than a 'proper' subwoofer that can 'handle' the frequency. 

 

ie. Let's say you had 5 Focal Grand Utopia's  and a 'proper' sub.  Do you think setting the sub crossover point to 80hz would sound best or something lower?

hemants is offline  
post #26 of 27 Old 01-25-2014, 08:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Hopinater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 503

Personally I think the best use of money would be to buy the best bookshelves I could find (considering the budget) for the front three channels and then buy cheaper surrounds. That way the subwoofer is handling the bass from 80 Hz and below and you can apply the money saved on surrounds to buying better fronts.   

duc135 likes this.
Hopinater is offline  
post #27 of 27 Old 01-26-2014, 11:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemants View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
 

 

You are now using a false analogy.  No one has suggested that better speakers are not better.

 

 

You seemed to be implying that better speakers are not better below 80hz than a 'proper' subwoofer that can 'handle' the frequency. 

 

ie. Let's say you had 5 Focal Grand Utopia's  and a 'proper' sub.  Do you think setting the sub crossover point to 80hz would sound best or something lower?

 

Even if you have full range speakers that have the same bass capabilities of your subwoofers, if the system is set up properly, having the subwoofer handle the bass will almost always be the best choice.  The reason is that it is usually not the case that the best in-room bass performance placement is going to coincide with the best placement for the upper frequencies.  Thus, the bass will be better if sent to the subwoofer instead of the main speakers.  Of course, if one sets up the system improperly, then it could go either way.

 

Thus, it is also a waste of money to buy speakers that can handle the deep bass, if one can get cheaper ones that are equally good for the frequencies above the crossover point.

 

Of course, that is assuming that actual sound quality is the goal, and not something else.  Those who buy their speakers based on how they look instead of how they sound, of course, will spend their money for whatever look they like.  There is nothing wrong with them doing that if they wish, though it is essentially the same idea as those who buy those little cube Bose speakers because they like the look.  As long as one is not confusing looks with performance, there is nothing wrong with someone buying something for how it looks.  It is only a problem if they delude themselves into confusing the looks with actual performance.


God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
Reply Speakers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off