Home Surround Sound vs Movie Surround Sound What's the Difference? - Page 2

I know and understand the science, but thank you.

Good lord, you people are touchy.

Yeah, that sounds like horn loaded tweeters. (I'm joking!)

It's all personal opinion. I like mine, you like yours. That's all that matters.

For those that don't own Klipsch, what speakers were you listening to? I would venture to say Reference line below rf-7's (made in China...the 7's are American made) or some of the other speakers that are more prone to brasiness. On the other hand, a 2 way w/ RF-7's, or the heritage line is outstanding for music.

I find horns to be just fine for home theater. I've never listened to any high end horns so I have no clue if I'd like them. I love ribbons for music, but as penngray points out horns would be the best for the huge dynamic peaks while a ribbon or dome may not be able to handle it.

The lower end Klipsch I've heard I loved for HT, music not so much, but they were the cheapo chinese made line so it is expected.

I find it funny that people get so offended when someone says they don't like a particular speaker. That is an opinion. It's not like anyone is telling you not to buy something you may like. Who cares what other people like? Why would you care? My opinion is the only one that matters to me, but that doesn't mean I can't learn something from someone else's at the same time.

Now then. What speaker type CAN handle the dynamics of HT and pull good double duty for a good 2ch setup (without a sub)? That is the question I want answered. My quest for this speaker seems like it will never end.

um...why... without a sub? it's well established that multiple spaced subs give the best results. I can think of a speaker that does fit your criteria but honestly i'd say the Geddes Summa more than fits the bill for a music/ht dual setup for anyone sane enougj to use multiple subs for all their musical benefits.

2 ch, music-only setups, tend to NOT have a sub. For one, most music doesn't tend to plumb the depths that require a stand-alone sub, over decent floorstanding tower speakers anyways. Two: introducing a sub into the equation can muddle things in the time-alignment domain.

And how does such a setup address room modes below 100hz? Just because they 'tend' to do one thing doesn't make that thing optimal. it just makes it popular.


Not if you understand the psychoacoustics behind bass perception. Not to mention time alignment is trivial to setup for anyone remotely serious about hi-fi. And not one sub, but three or four. we're not talking about plumbing the depths either. take a look at the subjective auditions of Audiokinesis Planetarium Betas or more specifically the SWARM. a 12" midwoofer only playing down to around 120hz, plus four mediocre 8" long throw subwoofers handing bass below that point. notice what they say about the bass for music.

Is there anyone out there who would trade me my Klipsch THX Utra2 7.2 speakers
for a nice set of Bose so I can get some decent sound

I've just never liked to have a sub when listening to music. Granted I don't have a very music capable sub so that is one reason. I'm of the mind that a good 2ch setup should be able to reproduce music properly without relying on a sub for the lowest frequencies. That is what I prefer. I could use a sub, but I don't like to for anything other than HT.

Also, bot any links to the geddes summa? Google wasn't all that helpful. I do like that it is a diy speaker as that's what I'd like to do. Any other wave guide suggestions?

after much thought and debating I will but you will have to pay for shipping or traveling expense to exchange the Klipsch for the Bose, I don't want to take too much of a loss

You keep saying "a sub". We're talking about subs. The raw physics dictate that in order for a passive 2 channel speaker to be able to reproduce the lowest frequencies, it either needs a 21" woofer that can play low AND up to 300hz or higher for a good crossover in order to have any decent sensitivity, or to throw sensitivity away for extension. That means the need for 1000w amps to drive a lot of great speakers (IE Revel Salon) and the consequence is that there's so much heat produced that these speakers still don't respond to turning the volume up. And that still has nothing to do with sound quality. if you want sound quality how do you expect to place speakers in the optimal location for imaging/soundstage/timbral accuracy, while not suffering from room mode issues?

As I mentioned in my previous post, you need to consider what ""seasoned audiophiles"" who don't care about HT, think about MULTIPLE subs.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php...7103#msg547103

for example. or Welti/Devantier's research:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20111012/13680.pdf

or Geddes' research:
http://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_geddes/

or sean olive's confirmation (comment number six):
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/0...reference.html

or floyd toole's book:

http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduc.../dp/0240520092

or gene dellasalla's measured results:

http://www.audioholics.com/tweaks/ge...-bass/two-subs

I could keep going, btw. Just about all evidence points to a 2 speaker, 3 or 4 sub approach as being superior to a 2 speaker approach. Listening confirms. Has nothing to do with subs being for HT. we're talking about music. About the only non sub solution that comes close to a multi sub solution is a rotatable cardioid woofer section that shifts to dipole, (like these) and that's not without its own limitations (mainly a reduction in dynamics making it good for small rooms only, and it has to be an active loudspeaker)


The summa is currently unavaialble. Its little brother the abbey is pretty damn close.

http://www.gedlee.com/abbey.htm

and Duke Lejeune's planetarium betas are arguably better because they are bipoles.

If you want great bass sound quality, then you have to throw away your pride and stop trying to buy speakers that reproduce 20hz on their own.


Check out the diy thread for SEOS-12/15

Ok, I see what you're saying. I guess my thinking is those multiple subs should be part of the speaker so it is a self contained unit that is capable of reproducing all frequencies needed for music.

I just want to have 2 speakers that can do what I want without the additional help of subs no matter how many there are.

A good speaker design with bassbins would qualify, but I've got limited space next to the screen so speakers have to be somewhat thin (less than 24"). Plus their primary duty would be HT because I don't get much time to listen to music.

You don't see what i'm saying at all, though! Think of a speaker as one source of bass that radiates sound in all directions from that one spot. As the bass reflects off walls in the room that you listen in, it combines and cancels. The bass response in your room from a pair of stereo speakers is probably a mess that you're just used to.

It's borderline impossible for one physical location in the room to illumate the room in such a manner that there's no combination and cancelation of reflected bass waves off of walls. you can try to reduce it to an extent with treatments but it just doesn't work effectively below 100hz, especially not if you don't sit in a 10000 dollar room at one specific seat. If you want good bass below 100hz you need to illumate the room from more than one physical location.

So four subs together is useless. you can consider four subs together as being one sub.

You need three-five subs placed well apart at different locations inside the room, in mono (or two sets of three-five subs if you insist on keeping the signal in stereo, but that's useless). The way the illumate the room differently leads to an averaging of bass that results in as close to flat frequency response as it gets. In geddes' setup, no crossover is even used. the mains are run full range but the bandpass subs play up to 150hz. So there's five PHYSICAL sources of bass - two mains and three subs - keeping bass as flat as possible and thus the tightest bass response possible.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/830660-post13.html

Ok. You are correct in saying that I'm used to it. I get your point now, it just isn't possible for me to have a setup like that in my room. The subs will have to be in the front of the room. I've always planned on using multiple subs, I just have always stuck to my two speakers and no subs for 2ch music. I may be missing out, but it just isn't possible. I read Gene's article when it was posted and remember wishing I had the room to do that. Someday maybe.

So for a room as restricted as mine what would you do? I have lots of room in front, but no alternate sub locations due to couches and tables and whatnot.

No, not everyone NEEDS or even wants perfectly even bass response below 100hz.

I already mentioned Duke's SWARM system. Are four of these tiny subs really that difficult to find a place for?

http://www.audiokinesis.com/product_ak_swarm.html

or a DIY equivalent with better aesthetics.

Remember, big subs for deep HT bass, but multiple any size works subs for musical bass.

Of course not. But there's no other solution for a person that wants truly accurate bass. The closest you can come is with a very convoluted cardioid as I mentioned earlier, and those themselves can't be placed less than 5ft near walls which is not practical for some people.

I just checked out the audiokenesis speakers you pointed out and they look great. I think I could make those work. I was going to build the Jim Holtz Statments for my mains as I like the sound of a ribbon, but have read that for HT they aren't that great. Plus they have the open back mid range so placement would be similar the the beta's you pointed out.

I think you missed the price on the Planetarium Betas!


Just how far do you sit? The sealed statements + 3-4 good well placed subs could be a good choice if you sit 8-10 feet away and don't listen at ear bleed reference levels for ""dynamics"". If you listen even a few db below reference like normal people, I don't think the statements are a poor choice. Of course if I had to recommend something with a ribbon, it would be these speakers that lennon put together:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archi...t-1319065.html

The woofers for it are currently on sale until Oct 17

I don't have a problem with someone saying they listened to speaker A from company B, and didn't like it - but I do have a problem when someone generalizes about a type of speaker design, as this article did.

I've heard Klipsh Horns (they're roughly 150lbs and take up 3' in corners of a room) and thought they sounded awesome driven from a tube amp...wayyyyyyy better than any other Klipsch speakers that I thought had bad highs and imaging.

I'm still using NEAR 50MLs...almost Thiel 3.1 (at the time) sounding to me at 1/3 the cost. It really depends on what you can hear...everyone is different. Some people hear stuff others can't...some have different priorities (bass, highs, mids, imaging, etc.)...

p.s., that article did totally suck....

I have 6 subs in 4 locations, and there is not bad seat in the room. Flat, even response and tons of headroom.

I did see the price. I was more referring to the design. No way I could spend that much on speakers. I can't even find anything under 2k that I think is worth the money.

My head would be almost exatly 8.5' from the front of the statements if my measurements are correct, so I think they will work fine.

I'll check out those other designs.

Everybody keeps talking about the horn issue in this article and has yet to mention the fact that it states that most people don't use acoustically transparent screens because of the sound quality issues and that most people don't use direct radiating speakers for surrounds. Instead they use bipolar or Axiom's quadpolar. The statement about horns is pretty stupid but I think these other 2 are absolutely ridiculous. People don't go with a non-AT screen because of a sound issue. Its because they don't have room or the money. And most people do not use Quadpolar speakers. They may be great and all, even though I've never heard them, but give me a damn break.

They use horns in theaters so that the patrons sitting in the last row can hear all the dialog clearly while the person sitting in the first row isn't blown out of their seat.

Yes, you are. Your only recourse now is to give me your speakers for "proper disposal" and get something else. To show how much I care about your audio, I will pay the shipping costs.

Do it nao!

When it comes to home Theater your Martin logans are distortion machines. A quote from Penngray
THAT IS A COMPLETELY UNTRUE STATEMENT.

Hahahahahahaahahahahha! Thanks man (wipes the tears from my eyes), I haven't laughed so hard in a VERY long time!

You have that right Ron...I didn't see his post until you quoted him.

And yes, I AM talking Home Theater...

You people are funny. Don't dog on horn loaded speakers or people will fly off the handle. Let's not mention that they are the only type of speaker that a movie sounds good on. I don't know how 95% of people who listen to movies through their TV's speakers get by.
I'm sure horn loaded speakers produce clean dynamics with less distortion at much louder volumes. But for someone to say that Martin Logan's would be distortion machine's for movies is crazy. Not everyone listens at or close to reference. I have Canton speakers and usually listen at around -20. I would hardly say they are distortion machines...BUT maybe I would if I listened to some Catalysts side by side. I wish I had the wife/funds to find out.

Let's all keep this in perspective...most people don't give a rats a$$ about home theater. If you have taken the time to find AVS and research the highly regarded brands, you are waaaaaay ahead of the curve.