Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nbaylot46 
What about these speakers?
EMP Tek E5Bi Bookshelf Speakers w/ E5Ci center 720/5 (maybe can get lower if I can get 5 E5Bi)
I have not auditioned these myself, but the manufacturer has a good reputation for sound quality. What concerns me, however, is that for a similar price, they are larger than the HTM and ported, yet less efficient (similar to the Pioneers in this regard). The center is also apparently not designed to have better horizontal dispersion than the average MTM (widely spaced midwoofers, a tweeter right between them, and a somewhat high tweeter-mid crossover frequency), unlike the HTM (closely spaced midwoofers, offset tweeter, relatively low tweeter-mid crossover frequency due to its robust tweeter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nbaylot46
Arx A1b ~750/5
There are additional shipping costs, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nbaylot46
vs
Ascend HTM200SE 722/5
I have not auditioned the Arx A1b (yet), but it has been receiving a lot of praise for sound quality and value. At more than twice the size of the HTM (kind of big for surrounds, given your WAF), however, it is more comparable with the Ascend CBM-170 SE, although the latter costs a little more ($788 for five before shipping, or only $738 with HTMs for surrounds, which is actually less). For a direct comparison with the latter, read the following thread (mainly the posts made by padgman1, who did the comparison):
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1446006/ascend-acoustics-cbm-170-se-vs-arx-a1b/0_100
It seems like a draw, pretty much, with the outcome depending on what kinds of sonic characteristics you prefer. I own and use five CBMs in my home theater (bias alert!
), and I can confirm much of what padgman1 said about it, relative to most other speakers. It does seem to "fill the room" with sound more than other similar speakers (not necessarily reflections, just a "wall of sound" from the speakers like he said), and it is somewhat on the "bold" side in terms of overall presentation (good dynamics for its class, too), although I would dispute that it is "forward," as it does not project the image of the sound into the room--the image seems to come from the distance of the speaker, albeit we may be using the term "forward" differently, for all I know. The A1b seems to be just as good in most respects, but has a different and more "laid back" character that many people prefer. The XBL2 technology it uses allows its smaller midwoofer to more or less match the CBM's larger one in bass capability, although the latter still has a system efficiency advantage of about 4 dB (2.5 times more efficient).
As for the HTM versus CBM, the CBM is a little warmer or fuller and sounds a little "bigger," but on the whole they actually sound pretty similar, which was the intention. The CBM can generate greater output without distorting and much better bass on its own, but when used with a subwoofer, the differences only matter at very loud volumes and/or very large rooms. The A1b also sounds fuller in the bass and mid-bass than the HTM, but if all of the specs are accurate, it is actually less efficient than even the HTM (by 1.6 times).
This is why I like recommending the HTM so much when having a small size matters--it doesn't give up all that much to larger speakers as long as it is utilized properly. The Cambridge Audio S30 is also a great example of this, despite being of a very different design (also has disadvantages as described elsewhere in this thread).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nbaylot46
Next, Will the F12 handle my room or do I really need to squeeze in for the PL200 or wait till the RW12D goes on sale?
Handling a room, in terms of cubic feet as most people look at it, is really about pressurization, I think. Because your room is somewhat sizable and, significantly, is open to other rooms, you'd need a fairly large, high-end sub to do that, I'm afraid. But the F12, with the proper placement and setup, can provide all the bass you need to hear. It digs pretty deeply and sounds pretty good, by the vast majority of accounts. That said, I think that a sub like the RW-12D or even the PL-200 would impress you more, as they dig a bit deeper still and sound better (hitting in a harder yet better controlled manner). It is not for me to say which system would be better for you overall, of course--all I can do is try to explain and characterize the differences between your options, as best I can. Only you can answer all of the pertinent questions that arise. Sound quality and sub-bass performance--which is more important to you? What about speaker size and output capability? The cheapest speakers (Pioneer) allow for the biggest, baddest sub, but they're larger, and have lower efficiency and the least output capability (before gradually compressing and distorting). How loud do you intend to listen to your home theater? If you want small but high quality and loud, you can have that, but it'll cost you money and therefore sub performance. And so forth....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
caloyzki
guys, finally i just completed my 5.1 HT system. i got 2 energy RC 70's my fronts, Energy V5.2C as my center, energy V Minis for my surrounds, denon 1612 receiver, and dayton 1200 for my sub. it only cost me for everything for $1204. is it a good deal guys?
Those are all great values for the prices they're going at right now (and the Energy RC and Veritas series are very good speakers, too), so I'd say definitely yes. I hope that the subwoofer is enough for you, though--if you feel that it is, then for the time being, it is.
Edited by Robert Cook - 3/5/13 at 12:19pm
