AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Best bookshelf speakers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best bookshelf speakers

post #1 of 36
4/12/12 at 2:25pm
Thread Starter 
Hi all, what would be the best bookshelf left,right and center speakers for 100% movies and television?looking to spend around $800 for everything. my room is 10x20 and my receiver is a denon 2112, my sub is a HSU vtf2mk4. Thanks
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 36
4/12/12 at 3:10pm
Best is a vague term. No one can tell you what you would like best. You can be given options though.

For 100% movies and TV Klipsch would be good. A pair of RB51s and an RC52 center would work well. This is my lazy choice. Klipsch are easy to buy and listen to in various big box stores.

There are many, many other options though. Best if you can go out and demo some.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 36
4/12/12 at 5:13pm
Thread Starter 
Come on people I need some suggestions. Pls help
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 36
4/12/12 at 5:14pm
Rclcr + rc 10s? Or hsu hb1s
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 36
4/12/12 at 6:01pm
3-Arx A2.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 36
4/12/12 at 6:02pm
ARX A1b or the regular A1. I have all ARXs and freaking love them!
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 36
4/12/12 at 6:14pm
3 ea - Boston E60 speakers
http://www.amazon.com/Boston-Acousti...4279608&sr=8-1
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 36
4/12/12 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjclecky View Post

Come on people I need some suggestions. Pls help

I think Kini62 gave you pretty good advice for 100% HT. If we can help you with selection, give us a shout.
AVScience Insider

Buy Gear From AVS

» Get the latest news and updates at the AVScience sponsor page.
Reply
AVScience Insider

Buy Gear From AVS

» Get the latest news and updates at the AVScience sponsor page.
Reply
post #9 of 36
4/16/12 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bearchan View Post

3-Arx A2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokenAshes View Post

ARX A1b or the regular A1. I have all ARXs and freaking love them!

Yeah i'm loving the Arx speakers. 3 A2 LCRs across the front has huge output and has great midbass punch too them.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 36
4/16/12 at 7:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Rclcr + rc 10s?

Or Energy Veritas V5.1s and a 5.2C. Or just 3 of the Energy RC-LCRs.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 36
4/20/12 at 1:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Yeah i'm loving the Arx speakers. 3 A2 LCRs across the front has huge output and has great midbass punch too them.

How are the Arx A1b compared to other bookshelves with dome tweeter? Any comparisons or reviews?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 36
4/20/12 at 1:57pm
HTD's Level 3 LCR.

I have them and love them
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 36
4/20/12 at 2:30pm
To add to your list...

Ascend Acoustics CBM-170SE and CMT-340SEc center.

Hsu Research HB1-MK2 and HC1-MK2 center
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 36
4/20/12 at 3:43pm
Curtis do you have experience with the Ascend? A friend has asked me to help with a 5.1 setup with bookshelf speakers, I'm just beginning to put a list of possibilities together.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 36
4/20/12 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

Curtis do you have experience with the Ascend? A friend has asked me to help with a 5.1 setup with bookshelf speakers, I'm just beginning to put a list of possibilities together.

Did you read my sig?

I help moderate Ascend's forum, and I am very familiar with their products.

Add the Ascends and Hsus I suggested and try and get a listen.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 36
4/20/12 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjclecky View Post

Hi all, what would be the best bookshelf left,right and center speakers for 100% movies and television?looking to spend around $800 for everything. my room is 10x20 and my receiver is a denon 2112, my sub is a HSU vtf2mk4. Thanks

If you want a natural and SMOOOOOOTH midrange I'll also agree on the Ascend 170's.........basically "Kef lite". Very good no frills bang for the buck speaker. They sound much better than they look, and thats a good thing.

Also you can score some nice Kef speakers in that price range as well too. Q100 monitors and a matching Q600c center channel can be easily had within your price range. Also Kef's older iQ30's and matching iQ60c center can be had brand new from Ebay still and probably for a bit less money than the newer Q's. THey perform just as well if not better too if a nice natural smooth midrange is a trait you like in a speaker.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 36
4/20/12 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

To add to your list...

Ascend Acoustics CBM-170SE and CMT-340SEc center.

Hsu Research HB1-MK2 and HC1-MK2 center

x2 ^^^^^^. That would be where I would start.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 36
4/20/12 at 9:43pm
I'm ordering the CBM-170SE to replace my $2600 Usher Be-718's. It's hard to get any more accuracy from bookshelves short of probably using ribbons
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 36
4/20/12 at 11:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veda View Post

I'm ordering the CBM-170SE to replace my $2600 Usher Be-718's. It's hard to get any more accuracy from bookshelves short of probably using ribbons

Not sure I would do that. The Ushers are better.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 36
4/21/12 at 12:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Did you read my sig?

I help moderate Ascend's forum, and I am very familiar with their products.

Add the Ascends and Hsus I suggested and try and get a listen.

Hah! Sorry, I use mobile app more often these days, which doesn't show signatures. But I do now remember that
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 36
4/21/12 at 4:34am
Thread Starter 
Would the cbm-170se be a HUGE improvement over the infinity primus 162?
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 36
4/21/12 at 5:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Also you can score some nice Kef speakers in that price range as well too. Q100 monitors and a matching Q600c center channel can be easily had within your price range.

I heard that setup yesterday. Picked up a pair of Q100's because of the audition. I don't know if they'll be fatiguing in the long run (the cabinet doesn't exactly make efforts to reduce diffraction), but they provide a better window into the recording than a few $20k+ speakers I've heard. (Though that's because it seems that few of the players in the five-figure speaker market actually know how to design a crossover, or control tweeter directivity at the bottom of its passband. There are exceptions: Revel, Tannoy, KEF, Gradient, Gedlee, etc. But most five-figure speakers perform worse than well-engineered cheap speakers.)

In stereo, they sounded astoundingly similar to a pair of current Quad ESL's, though without the delicacy of the Quads on material such as solo oboe. To my ears they were clearly superior in every respect except for upper bass dynamics to a pair of Wilson Benesch ARC's. (Same room, same electronics.)

The "matching" center, however, just isn't. For movies I suppose it would be fine (movie sound isn't terribly important, and fine details of loudspeakers are obscured by visual stimuli) but on more serious material ("Tommy" on DVD-A, "Wish You Were Here" on SACD, Dmitri Kitayenko conducting a Cologne orchestra through DSCH 8 on SACD), the mismatch between the mains and center was glaring and obvious.

A far higher-fidelity option would be to use three Q100's across the front.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 36
4/21/12 at 5:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Yeah i'm loving the Arx speakers. 3 A2 LCRs across the front has huge output and has great midbass punch too them.

I agree. I love my Arx speakers for the price I don't think they can be beat. The ribbon tweeters are fantastic and the split gap motors are incredible. Personally I would go with the Arx 100%. Cant wait for the A5s! Lol
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 36
4/21/12 at 5:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

I heard that setup yesterday. Picked up a pair of Q100's because of the audition. I don't know if they'll be fatiguing in the long run (the cabinet doesn't exactly make efforts to reduce diffraction), but they provide a better window into the recording than a few $20k+ speakers I've heard. (Though that's because it seems that few of the players in the five-figure speaker market actually know how to design a crossover, or control tweeter directivity at the bottom of its passband. There are exceptions: Revel, Tannoy, KEF, Gradient, Gedlee, etc. But most five-figure speakers perform worse than well-engineered cheap speakers.)

In stereo, they sounded astoundingly similar to a pair of current Quad ESL's, though without the delicacy of the Quads on material such as solo oboe. To my ears they were clearly superior in every respect except for upper bass dynamics to a pair of Wilson Benesch ARC's. (Same room, same electronics.)

The "matching" center, however, just isn't. For movies I suppose it would be fine (movie sound isn't terribly important, and fine details of loudspeakers are obscured by visual stimuli) but on more serious material ("Tommy" on DVD-A, "Wish You Were Here" on SACD, Dmitri Kitayenko conducting a Cologne orchestra through DSCH 8 on SACD), the mismatch between the mains and center was glaring and obvious.

A far higher-fidelity option would be to use three Q100's across the front.

Kef's are fantastic speakers. The Q100's are no exception either. Killer bang for the buck. Anytime you have a point source driver setup your gaining a natural advantage. The Q100's are very nice. The center your correct, its tuned differently due to the enclosure. RUn pink noise through it and measure with an RTA you will see a big difference in the lower midrange being heavily bumped. If you have a decent EQ in your AVR or processor you can tune this out and match up the frequency to the mains well. If not, yes I agree that 3 Q100's across the board is the way to go........some people though want that slimline horizontal laying speaker for the center channel for differing reasons.........
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 36
4/21/12 at 5:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

If you want a natural and SMOOOOOOTH midrange I'll also agree on the Ascend 170's.........basically "Kef lite". Very good no frills bang for the buck speaker. They sound much better than they look, and thats a good thing.

Also you can score some nice Kef speakers in that price range as well too. Q100 monitors and a matching Q600c center channel can be easily had within your price range. Also Kef's older iQ30's and matching iQ60c center can be had brand new from Ebay still and probably for a bit less money than the newer Q's. THey perform just as well if not better too if a nice natural smooth midrange is a trait you like in a speaker.

I agree with the smoothness of the Ascends. I had the Sierras and 170s in a 5.1 system and loved the sound. It would be much different than the Klipsch though...not in a bad way....the Klipsch wouldn't be as "laid back" is maybe the best way to describe it.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 36
4/21/12 at 6:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

***The center your correct, its tuned differently due to the enclosure. RUn pink noise through it and measure with an RTA you will see a big difference in the lower midrange being heavily bumped. If you have a decent EQ in your AVR or processor you can tune this out and match up the frequency to the mains well ***

To be clear, the difference I observed in is not the upper bass/lower mids. If it were, that would be fairly easy for a decent room correction system (ARC, Trinnov, Audyssey, etc.) to fix, as you correctly stated.

The difference is in the upper midrange, at the top of the male voice/bottom of the female voice. The center, compared directly to the Q100 (or the Quads, for that matter), sounds quite recessed and nasal. I don't know if it's just because of the different diffraction signature, or interference between the Uni-Q and flanking woofers. Maybe that sonic signature is actually better for movies. I've never bothered to find out because anything that detracts from reproduction of music is in my mind a step backwards.

But if one must have a "slim" center, a Q100 turned on its side is a better-sounding choice than the "matching" center for multichannel music, at least.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 36
4/21/12 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

To be clear, the difference I observed in is not the upper bass/lower mids. If it were, that would be fairly easy for a decent room correction system (ARC, Trinnov, Audyssey, etc.) to fix, as you correctly stated.

The difference is in the upper midrange, at the top of the male voice/bottom of the female voice. The center, compared directly to the Q100 (or the Quads, for that matter), sounds quite recessed and nasal. I don't know if it's just because of the different diffraction signature, or interference between the Uni-Q and flanking woofers. Maybe that sonic signature is actually better for movies. I've never bothered to find out because anything that detracts from reproduction of music is in my mind a step backwards.

But if one must have a "slim" center, a Q100 turned on its side is a better-sounding choice than the "matching" center for multichannel music, at least.

Well I wouldnt be using a Q600c or any center channel for music regardless.....especially if its response has not been properly tuned. My XQ50c is the same, has a bump in the lower midrange/upper bass as well. I EQ'd it out and now it sounds natural. The diffraction off the front face is not why its tone is different. Its due to enclosure and driver array differences, and when you couple this with the fact many/most people have their center channels abutted against a back wall or confined space it amplifies the issue. Again though, it CAN be EQ'd and smoothed out properly IF you have the proper equipment to do so. One reason why I emply Rane DEQ 60l's for my audio systems. Gets rid of anomolies of the response curve due to room/boundary interactions and cabinet/driver array designs. Not everyone wants to go this route though......but if your AVR or HT processor has a decent EQ built in and you have an RTA w/ pink noise, then you can dial in your audio system pretty darn good to your room and setup.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 36
4/21/12 at 7:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjclecky View Post

Would the cbm-170se be a HUGE improvement over the infinity primus 162?

I just saw this post. I moved from Ascend to the Primus line. I'm using (3) 351's across the front and (8) 153's for wides, heights , and surrounds in an 11.2 home theatre. My previous rig was for both movies and music which is why I was using Ascends...very smooth and non fatiguing. Now that I have a dedicated theatre I wanted something a little "brighter". I have to admit on some movies (LOTR) at very high volumes the sound gets a little too "crisp" for my taste. I still haven't been able to really choose which I like better...but its hard not to like the sweetness of the Ascends.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 36
4/21/12 at 7:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Not sure I would do that. The Ushers are better.

You need to be more specific when talking to me otherwise we'll end up with the same engagement all over again. Better in what way?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 36
4/21/12 at 9:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veda View Post

You need to be more specific when talking to me otherwise we'll end up with the same engagement all over again. Better in what way?

OK...I had the Ushers in my room and compared them to other speakers.

The Usher is a much "bigger" sounding speaker...deeper bass for sure, highs are excellent, maybe not super airy, but still very good, and open midrange....and great balance. It is also not a "small" speaker. I think the Sierra-1's are bit more clear/crisper, with excellent imaging.

The CBM-170SEs are also very good...great balance as well, but at least a step down from Usher is all respects. I think it sets a mark in under $400/pr speakers though.

I guess it boils down to what you expect from the speakers and how you are going to use them.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Best bookshelf speakers