or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Rockets v.s. JTR
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rockets v.s. JTR - Page 9

post #241 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by septim View Post

Hey have you ever tried running without a center? I am just curious to hear your thoughts. For me center channel placement is less than ideal, and as of right now I don't feel that I'm missing anything, far from it in fact.

Yes by accident. I had been playing music (2 channel) on my Oppo BDP-83 and when I started a Std. DVD movie, it stayed in Stereo mode . It was a talky movie and I didn't notice the lack of ceter or surrounds until half way through the film . Even then, it was the lack of surround channels that I noticed, not the center. It really sounded very good with just the mains playing.
post #242 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

Yes by accident. I had been playing music (2 channel) on my Oppo BDP-83 and when I started a Std. DVD movie, it stayed in Stereo mode . It was a talky movie and I didn't notice the lack of ceter or surrounds until half way through the film . Even then, it was the lack of surround channels that I noticed, not the center. It really sounded very good with just the mains playing.

I will echo that JTRs (I have the newer Triple 8s) throw a very realistic center stage. I also had to check to be sure that the center was not on when listening to stereo music. However, if you are having multiple people watch a movie, the center channel will help anchor the dialog for those not in the sweet spot. If you aren't worried about other seating positions a phantom center can work fine.
Joe H
post #243 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by rman222 View Post

I will echo that JTRs (I have the newer Triple 8s) throw a very realistic center stage. I also had to check to be sure that the center was not on when listening to stereo music. However, if you are having multiple people watch a movie, the center channel will help anchor the dialog for those not in the sweet spot. If you aren't worried about other seating positions a phantom center can work fine.
Joe H

Thats awesome to hear... I have a 1 seat sweey spot and the speakers are only about 5 feet apart
post #244 of 278
Just out of curiosity and with all due respect, why would you take a track that has 5 dedicated audio tracks for five different speakers and cut it into 2 channels. I understand that maybe you would want a fuller front sound stage for dialog but I would think that the trade off just wouldn't be worth it. Especially if you are dealing with JTR speakers (if you could have a very good center that would provide the proper front sound stage). I couldn't imagine not having the ambiance and presence of surrounds. Just my opinion!!!
post #245 of 278
No question that for HT, 5.1 (or more) is the way to go. The phantom center is usually out of necessity rather than preference. The JTR's with their wide dispersion characteristics make a phantom center much more viable than many point source speakers I have owned/heard.
post #246 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by notoriousmatty View Post

I absolutely adore my Triple 8s for movies. However for music they are average performers at best. I like a sweet sounding speaker for my listening which is mostly experimental instrumental (see blue sky black death) and the triple 8s dont provide that. Ill probably add some Salk Song Towers for music listening. The JTRs are the very best ive ever heard for movies though. But Im thinking about buying a pair of different speakers for music listening.

That surprises me. I have the new Triple 8's, and as awesome as they are for movies, they have impressed me even more with music.
post #247 of 278
Hey guys,

not to be the turd in the punchbowl, admittedly having never heard anything by JTR, but I have read the word "dynamic" 100 times in this thread and it got me thinking after I read the spec sheet on some of these loudspeakers.

Of course they are "dynamic" (for their range, anyways)! They implement large (or in the case of the 12's, VERY large) cones and play nothing below 80-90hz!

I'm no engineer, but when you relieve a loudspeaker of the duties of reproducing a massive portion of the sound spectrum (specifically in this case, nearly the entire low-end), it will afford it the opportunity to (in the JTR's case especially) DESTROY the balance of it. I mean the idea of multiple 12 inch drivers operating at 80 or 90hz and ABOVE is nearly unheard of, correct...that is in all but speakers in the most cavernous (read: theaters) venues?

In the end, without even hearing them, I would imagine that these speakers would be absolute overkill in 9 out of 10 HT's. Now, that said, I understand that these are not produced for ordinary HT's to begin with.

Simply, not to say that they even compare overall with the rockets, but, on the other hand, the rockets are attempting to be "near" full range speakers (prolly to around 30hz or so?) while the JTR's seem like bookshelves on steroids that will still require a couple thousand (or more?) more on a subwoofer to provide a bottom end.

Not to say that the rockets provide sub-woofer like bass, but what kind of speaker could they produce for 12-$1300 if it only had to play 90hz and above? I'd bet it'd be pretty "dynamic" too.

Honestly, I was taken aback a bit by the idea that even though these are tuned to 80hz, that they still are being described as heroically "dynamic".

How can any speaker that cannot produce the lower third of a cello be described as truly dynamic? Honest question.

really curious.

James


EDIT: after reading a bit further, it seems the 12 ht's will go all the way down to 50hz...at $3600 a pair!
post #248 of 278
I think in the case of these comments dynamic need not refer to frequency response but also to clarity at both high and low sound pressure levels - the JTR's excel at sounding clear from the lowest to highest volumes and also have the capacity to play much louder if needed than most speakers can.

Definition:

In music, dynamics normally refers to the volume of a sound or note, but can also refer to every aspect of the execution of a given piece, either stylistic (staccato, legato etc.) or functional (velocity). The term is also applied to the written or printed musical notation used to indicate dynamics.
post #249 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveUpton View Post

I think in the case of these comments dynamic need not refer to frequency response but also to clarity at both high and low sound pressure levels - the JTR's excel at sounding clear from the lowest to highest volumes and also have the capacity to play much louder if needed than most speakers can.

Definition:

In music, dynamics normally refers to the volume of a sound or note, but can also refer to every aspect of the execution of a given piece, either stylistic (staccato, legato etc.) or functional (velocity). The term is also applied to the written or printed musical notation used to indicate dynamics.

Gotcha, and I agree to a point. I was just a bit surprised by the lower limits of these. I have to admit that I have (gasp) Definitive BP 2000's and I've had them cut at 80hz to an SVS ultra and run full-range and there's simply no comparison.

For me, and especially at this price point, I would demand loudspeakers that are considerably closer to full-range.

To each, his/her own though I guess.

James
post #250 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Gotcha, and I agree to a point. I was just a bit surprised by the lower limits of these. I have to admit that I have (gasp) Definitive BP 2000's and I've had them cut at 80hz to an SVS ultra and run full-range and there's simply no comparison.

For me, and especially at this price point, I would demand loudspeakers that are considerably closer to full-range.

To each, his/her own though I guess.

James

You just explained why it is a wise decision to not require modern multi-channel/HT speakers to cover the entire operating range. Modern multi-channel systems are intended to have subwoofers. Why waste all of the size, cost, efficiency and resulting headroom for a range you are going to high pass out of the speaker anyway? If you look at even my very substantial Catalysts, you will see the low extension is about 55Hz. This is on purpose and intended to allow crossover flexibility of 50Hz on up (even to 100Hz) per the room acoustics and installation.

This is not yet a common approach as you still see many speakers offering extension to 28-45Hz, but I expect you will continue to see others take the hint and opt for the benefits available when low frequency extension only needs to facilitate the crossover executed in every pre-processor or receiver on the market.

Also realize the Triple 8 was initially designed for pro audio use. For a speaker this compact to be useful (in the pro audio world these are tiny), extended bass response is not an option, as they would never have enough output for concert use. When crossed at 80-100Hz to very powerful subwoofers with large amplifiers available, concert levels are possible for mid-small size venues.

It turns out many of the goals important for easy setup and use in pro audio can overlap if sound quality was included as an important design priority, where in pro audio often it is left as a lesser priority to durability and form factor.
post #251 of 278
I have not ever heard a full range speaker that can give the SPL's of the LFE channel even close to that of a dedicated sub. Even the popular $600 range of subs vastly overachieve full range performance.
post #252 of 278
Also when all components-amps, speakers, subs, are operating in their designed comfort zone you forget about what's playin what frequency. You just hear a cohesive presentation that can play very loudly without clipping or overexcursion, or any of the other nasties that draw attention to themselves.
post #253 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

You just explained why it is a wise decision to not require modern multi-channel/HT speakers to cover the entire operating range. Modern multi-channel systems are intended to have subwoofers. Why waste all of the size, cost, efficiency and resulting headroom for a range you are going to high pass out of the speaker anyway? If you look at even my very substantial Catalysts, you will see the low extension is about 55Hz. This is on purpose and intended to allow crossover flexibility of 50Hz on up (even to 100Hz) per the room acoustics and installation.

This is not yet a common approach as you still see many speakers offering extension to 28-45Hz, but I expect you will continue to see others take the hint and opt for the benefits available when low frequency extension only needs to facilitate the crossover executed in every pre-processor or receiver on the market.

Also realize the Triple 8 was initially designed for pro audio use. For a speaker this compact to be useful (in the pro audio world these are tiny), extended bass response is not an option, as they would never have enough output for concert use. When crossed at 80-100Hz to very powerful subwoofers with large amplifiers available, concert levels are possible for mid-small size venues.

It turns out many of the goals important for easy setup and use in pro audio can overlap if sound quality was included as an important design priority, where in pro audio often it is left as a lesser priority to durability and form factor.

Ummm, I actually did nothing of the sort. I think you assumed I thought the sound was bettered when the mains were crossed at 80 to the Ultra, but, in reality, I experience much better dynamics, smoother overall repsonse, and more impact when I allow my mains to do some heavy lifting.

I realize this is contrary to what many (including Audyssey) believe, but I can only speak for my room and my experience. Relying on "just" the Ultra to fill a decent-sized room with palpable, even, bass response was simply not sufficient- no matter how much calibration/room placement I experimented with. Heck, using audyssey both ways (crossed at 80 and run full range) consistently yielded increased low-end fidelity to me, my fiance, and brother all 3 times I compared the two.

And of COURSE I could have added another Ultra, but that's missing the point, IMO. I already possessed loudspeakers that could do the job, so adding another colossal box to the room seemed a bit daft to me.

Still, I understand your point, I just question what is gained where sometimes. If you're going to downsize main channel loudspeakers, fine, but it seems to me that you're only going to "pay" for it somewhere else with the introduction of 2-3 small refrigerators somewhere else.

So many times I see speakers like JTR's (like the Klipsch THX series for instance) set up in an array with giant subs right below them.

Think about that sentence.

I by no means am an expert here, and I realize both you (Mark) and dozens more here know loads more than I, but I can only speak from my experience, so take it for whatever it's worth I guess.

Happy Friday!

James
post #254 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony123 View Post

I have not ever heard a full range speaker that can give the SPL's of the LFE channel even close to that of a dedicated sub. Even the popular $600 range of subs vastly overachieve full range performance.

Good point. Although I would comment that Mark is right in that, less and less speakers are being designed as true full-rangers to begin with.

Put it this way: by the time you spend $3600 on the a pair of these mains and add a COMPARABLE sub to keep up with them, what will you spend?

I'd say $6000 is a pretty fair estimate.

Now, if what kind of full range loudspeakers could you build for $6000?

I'd bet some pretty damn good ones. Perhaps you'd be a bit short in overall SPL, but they'd fight a good fight, I figure.

Heck look at the Klipsch RF-83's. Now, I realize these are not JTR's or a pair of world class subs, but they're also had for about $2,000 a pair. Think of what THREE times the money could do, without real veneers or fancy cosmetics?

Again I understand the point of "separates" I just think there's a bit of room for both.

James
post #255 of 278
Hi James, Good name
Actually with my speakers I have experienced the same thing. My speakers go to 30-40 hz but in my room I get down to 20 hz when full range. I lose some SPL compared to when they are crossed over higher but the attack is better and the clarity of the vocals opened up to my surprise. Having said that my speakers and yours were made to handle more of the range. The JTR's were made to be crossed over right from the start. If you blend them with the right sub it will be awesome. It takes a little effort to blend subs. I also do not use Audyssey.
post #256 of 278
Sure does (take effort to blend subs), and I'd bet I'm prolly mediocre at it at the end of the day. That said, I still fancied my results AND Audysseys running the mains full-range.

Again though, I realize the JTR's are designed differently. And it's that design that I question (stronger word than I'd like to use), not that they can't reach fantastic, full-range levels and sound great doing it...with one or two (or three) subs of course.

James
post #257 of 278
i run bp 7002s and hated how they sounded set as large, much better set to small
post #258 of 278
The JTR's have awesome dynamics and great resolution. I had subs already so that was not a big deal for me. I love my full range speakers now but I do miss some bass(that my subs provided) but the improved clarity is worth it. There are trade offs.
post #259 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

The JTR's have awesome dynamics and great resolution. I had subs already so that was not a big deal for me. I love my full range speakers now but I do miss some bass(that my subs provided) but the improved clarity is worth it. There are trade offs.

Sorry for the confusion, but does that mean you had JTR's and then went to full range speakers? Also, are you now running you mains alone, or with sub(s)?
post #260 of 278
But those "refrigerators" and Triple 8s can be optimally placed. In my case, I have the small footprint of the Triple 8s and the "refrigerators" are hidden behind the screen.

And if there is a full range speaker that can outperform my subs, they certainly won't be as wallet friendly.
post #261 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by maintman View Post

Sorry for the confusion, but does that mean you had JTR's and then went to full range speakers? Also, are you now running you mains alone, or with sub(s)?

Click on my sig
post #262 of 278
Ha, I now recall seeing the table trays somewhere else before. Don't let that come off as facetious...very impressive setup.
post #263 of 278
Mastermaybe,
Have you had as great an experience with your full-range speakers during movie watching with no sub? Mark explained what these speakers were designed for, and you know what 99.9% of people are using them for, so their value is extremely reasonable. I personally think it would be impossible to get a single tower full-ranged speaker to outperform a Seaton/Danley/JTR speaker and subwoofer setup in a home theater.
post #264 of 278
My tv trays were the best stands ever. I did place them on subs after that.
post #265 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Mastermaybe,
Have you had as great an experience with your full-range speakers during movie watching with no sub? Mark explained what these speakers were designed for, and you know what 99.9% of people are using them for, so their value is extremely reasonable. I personally think it would be impossible to get a single tower full-ranged speaker to outperform a Seaton/Danley/JTR speaker and subwoofer setup in a home theater.

I agree ... but I would like to give these a listen at some point.
post #266 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

I agree ... but I would like to give these a listen at some point.

I would too.
post #267 of 278
What about Tripple 12's with growlers under them! That would be an amazing full range channel. Cross it over to a true sub at 40hz and you have a POWER HOUSE of a speaker for under 3k
post #268 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdeye11 View Post

You can get the Triple 8's for less than $1199. That being said if you have the room for the 12LF's and you can get 2 of them for $2400 that's a steal. No center channel is not that big of a deal. I ran phantom center for 8 years and loved it. I would go back to it in a heartbeat in the right situation, and this certainly sounds like one of them.

Where can you get the triple 8s for less that $1199??
post #269 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdy2179 View Post

Where can you get the triple 8s for less that $1199??

Audiogon. $2600 for three.
post #270 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdy2179 View Post

Where can you get the triple 8s for less that $1199??

I'm not sure what thirdeye was referring to but I did notice this on audiogon:

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....vailable.-acou

I have no affiliation with the seller.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Rockets v.s. JTR