or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Speakers for 100% movies/TV (~$3K to $5K budget)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Speakers for 100% movies/TV (~$3K to $5K budget) - Page 6

post #151 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown15 View Post

It must have something to do with it otherwise why would Klipsch rate them like that?
Is this a theory or a fact? I don't know so don't think I'm calling you out, I'm just curious for some other experts to weigh in. Maybe Bill Fitzmaurice could shed some light on this?

Bill and others have already talked about it.

Imagine playing music OUTDOORS. it's like a centillion S.F. Room size. Yet, the music can still sound extremely loud depending on your LISTENING DISTANCE from the speakers.
post #152 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

Again, as already pointed out, room size is not a factor for speaker volume - it is the listening distance that matters. Your room could be 100,000 sf and it does not matter for speakers as long as your listening distance is the usual 10-20 ft.

How could it not matter at all? Your reflection points would be way different for sound bouncing off of walls and then wouldn't you start to worrying about hearing echoes?
post #153 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown15 View Post

It must have something to do with it otherwise why would Klipsch rate them like that?
Is this a theory or a fact? I don't know so don't think I'm calling you out, I'm just curious for some other experts to weigh in. Maybe Bill Fitzmaurice could shed some light on this?
Where mains and surrounds are concerned what should be considered is the listening distance. Where subs are concerned what should be considered is the size of the room. Where manufacturer advertising is concerned they want you to spend as much as you can, never lose track of that fact.
Quote:
How could it not matter at all? Your reflection points would be way different for sound bouncing off of walls and then wouldn't you start to worrying about hearing echoes?
It doesn't matter what size the room is, big or small, you don't want it highly reflective. What changes in a larger room is that the problematic reflection frequencies move lower, so it takes a higher degree of treatment to tame them.
post #154 of 257
I wouldn't be able to dig it up again to find out where my mistake is, but I know I read in some of the Klipsch paraphanalea (why don't we have a spell check on this forum?) that it was designed for that level of performance in 3000cf. I suppose they were referring to the performance of the subs.

This is still confusing to me though... for instance, when I switched from the KL650's to the LaScala, the sound from the speakers (not the subs) had far more "authority" at the 25'LP of my third row, at the same measured volume. What was I perceiving?
post #155 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony123 View Post

when I switched from the KL650's to the LaScala, the sound from the speakers (not the subs) had far more "authority" at the 25'LP of my third row, at the same measured volume. What was I perceiving?
The difference between direct radiating and horn loaded woofers. It's kind of like the difference between a high revving 4 cylinder and a big block V8 that will get you from 0-60 in five seconds without even breaking into a sweat.
post #156 of 257
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony123 View Post

why don't we have a spell check on this forum?
+1; however, using a different internet browser may do the trick too. I use Google Chrome and it gives a red underline to misspelled words and then I can just click to get suggested spellings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony123 View Post

I know I read in some of the Klipsch paraphernalia that it was designed for that level of performance in 3000cf. I suppose they were referring to the performance of the subs.
That would be my guess. I've worked for and with marketing teams in my career and I know they often stretch the truth a little, but not to be deceptive. In this circumstance, I could envision an engineer telling a marketing person, "Hey, that isn't completely true..." and the marketing person saying, "Well, it's *true enough*. Let's try to keep the messaging simple so as to not confuse our customers who aren't speaker experts."
post #157 of 257
I think its the THX Ultra2 certification is 3000 cu ft. That's what My Pioneer sc-37 & 57 manuals stated as the reason they earned (I say bought) the certification. The receiver is able to drive the speakers to reference level in a room 3000 cu ft. If that was true I would not have bought an amp.
The main problem with most speakers is the limit on how loud you can turn up the volume. Most start falling apart somewhere between -20 and -10. The speakers that can be ran past reference without distortion are the best option for big rooms
When most read "turning it up to reference" automatically the mind starts thinking that's too loud. Distortion is what causes listening fatigue so a speaker capable of reference or past will not sound as loud or uncomfortable as a speaker at -10 distorting or falling apart, The more distortion free a speaker is the more comfortable it is to listen to at -10 to reference.
Chris.

Thx U2 is rooms up to 3000 cu ft with 12 ft or greater viewing distance from screen. That is for an avr I'm sure speakers are up to 3000 cu ft also.
Info is on Pioneers website for the new SC-79
Edited by countryWV - 6/28/13 at 8:12am
post #158 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryWV View Post

I think its the THX Ultra2 certification is 3000 cu ft. That's what My Pioneer sc-37 & 57 manuals stated as the reason they earned (I say bought) the certification.
The main problem with most speakers is the limit on how loud you can turn up the volume. Most start falling apart somewhere between -20 and -10. The speakers that can be ran past reference without distortion are the best option for big rooms
When most read "turning it up to reference" automatically the mind starts thinking that's too loud. Distortion is what causes listening fatigue so a speaker capable of reference or past will not sound as loud or uncomfortable as a speaker at -10 distorting or falling apart, The more distortion free a speaker is the more comfortable it is to listen to at -10 to reference.
Chris.

I too remember reading that 3000 cu ft somewhere. It's not in any of the product literature I have. Maybe it was in a review.

That THX Ultra2 certification sounds right.

I also remember when I bought the system the guys saying it was rated up to 10,000 cu ft.

And in the brochure, it states...
Quote:
The Klipsch THX Ultra2 System draws on our decades of experience as a leading supplier of professional cinema sound systems. From 15-speaker systems for small theaters to 40-speakers systems for 750-seat venues, we know how to fill every square inch of space with extraordinarily intense and realistic sound. How big is your room?

Though the quote is somewhat ambiguous and doesn't necessarily state the Klipsch THX Ultra2 System can do it, rather that Klipsch can.
post #159 of 257
I think we just don't know what specs they are stretching so we need to measure ourselves and not just put speakers in a room and say yeah, THX ultra reference setup.

Hey Chris,

How are those Elites working? I never tried them as processors only, I don't think I have ever tried an AVR as a processor. I am a sucker for manual EQ at my LP so I don't need all the Auto EQ and such.
post #160 of 257
How are those Elites working? I never tried them as processors only, I don't think I have ever tried an AVR as a processor. I am a sucker for manual EQ at my LP so I don't need all the Auto EQ and such.[/quote]

I blew the SC-37 up & they replaced it with the SC-57. During the wait I bought a 4311 and have been running it in pre-amp since Dec 2011. The SC-37 is my favorite receiver but I chose the 4311 simply for Audyssey XT32.
I sold the SC-57 and will just buy a pre-pro next either Integra 80.4 or Onkyo SC-5010 when they become available. I love using a separate amp so a good pre-pro will compliment it. Pioneer has to get a dual SubEQ into their AVRs sometime.
I never had any problem running the SC-37 as a processor only and had I not blown it up It would still be running my system today, I miss it.smile.gif
Chris
Edited by countryWV - 6/28/13 at 4:38pm
post #161 of 257
Yeah, I really liked my SC-37 as well. I don't need sub EQ(so many subs spread out) so I never bothered with XT32. I am still curious how the SC-37 would sound as a processor and my manual EQ doing its thing from the DCX. I am running a Meridian 861 right now and love it. I am afraid to change something right now and lose what I have!

OK back on topic.

BTW OP, as for WAF, the 888 LP is built the most solid and takes up less space than either the SHO-10 or the Klipsch.
post #162 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

Not many wives would accept DTS-10's. Also DTS-10's are far from plug and play. They take a lot of EQ to get them to work well the room. I remember you spending weeks to get satisfactory results.

The sub itself is no harder to EQ than any other as that is digital, the hard part is the sheer size and I could only fit them in one spot with the Giant JBL's I had at the time. Right now I could put them anywhere for the best response and then do minimal EQ. Having said that using multiple sealed I don't even need to EQ the subs as they are flat or a minus 3 dBs at 6hz.
post #163 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

The sub itself is no harder to EQ than any other as that is digital, the hard part is the sheer size and I could only fit them in one spot with the Giant JBL's I had at the time. Right now I could put them anywhere for the best response and then do minimal EQ. Having said that using multiple sealed I don't even need to EQ the subs as they are flat or a minus 3 dBs at 6hz.

The typical owner does not have REW or Omnimic and a separate EQ system, for his subs and or speakers. The DTS-10 is a good sub, but requires a lot of work to get a usable response from it. Here is what Ricci had to say about the DTS-10, when he made his measurements for Databass:

"Using the CEA2010 burst test the DTS-10 offers high output levels and between 63-100Hz it can produce very high output indeed thanks to the extra efficiency. The frequency response of the DTS-10 is very rough natively and unusable above 100Hz. It needs addressed with EQ to transform it into something listenable. It also exhibits notable ringing in the time domain at 54, and 100Hz. Both are areas that need aggressively cut with EQ fortunately which will help improve the audibility of this somewhat. The distortion performance of the DTS-10 is much rougher than what would normally be seen due to the complex loading on the drivers that the tapped horn cabinet provides. There are many large impedance fluctuations, excursion fluctuations and changes in loading on the drivers. This results in distortion that fluctuates wildly as well depending on the frequency. Some areas a very high and other frequencies are very low in distortion. Some areas have the distortion harmonics greatly amplified by the loading of the tapped horn enclosure. For example at 27Hz the 2nd harmonic is boosted by the 54Hz peak and the 3rd harmonic also gets amplified acoustically at 81Hz. Listening to the DTS-10 does not sound like you would expect from looking at the distortion performance. It is not as obvious as you would believe. Between 13-26Hz octave the DTS-10 is exceptionally clean and high output and has a different signature than other systems. Ideally the DTS-10 should be crossed over below 60Hz for best performance."

Also note, the DTS-10 is not a good match with the KL-650-THX or JTR T8 speakers. Both of those speakers are designed to be crossed over to a sub at 80hz and the DTS-10 is best if crossed over below 60hz.
Edited by AV Science Sales 5 - 6/28/13 at 9:25am
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 257
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

BTW OP, as for WAF, the 888 LP is built the most solid and takes up less space than either the SHO-10 or the Klipsch.
Besides actually listening to each, what are some specs or other indicators that might lead me to believe the Triple 8's will be better for movies than the KL-650's?
post #165 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jklick View Post

Besides actually listening to each, what are some specs or other indicators that might lead me to believe the Triple 8's will be better for movies than the KL-650's?

None, you have to listen.
post #166 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

The typical owner does not have REW or Omnimic and a separate EQ system, for his subs and or speakers. The DTS-10 is a good sub, but requires a lot of work to get a usable response from it. Here is what Ricci had to say about the DTS-10, when he made his measurements for Databass:

"Using the CEA2010 burst test the DTS-10 offers high output levels and between 63-100Hz it can produce very high output indeed thanks to the extra efficiency. The frequency response of the DTS-10 is very rough natively and unusable above 100Hz. It needs addressed with EQ to transform it into something listenable. It also exhibits notable ringing in the time domain at 54, and 100Hz. Both are areas that need aggressively cut with EQ fortunately which will help improve the audibility of this somewhat. The distortion performance of the DTS-10 is much rougher than what would normally be seen due to the complex loading on the drivers that the tapped horn cabinet provides. There are many large impedance fluctuations, excursion fluctuations and changes in loading on the drivers. This results in distortion that fluctuates wildly as well depending on the frequency. Some areas a very high and other frequencies are very low in distortion. Some areas have the distortion harmonics greatly amplified by the loading of the tapped horn enclosure. For example at 27Hz the 2nd harmonic is boosted by the 54Hz peak and the 3rd harmonic also gets amplified acoustically at 81Hz. Listening to the DTS-10 does not sound like you would expect from looking at the distortion performance. It is not as obvious as you would believe. Between 13-26Hz octave the DTS-10 is exceptionally clean and high output and has a different signature than other systems. Ideally the DTS-10 should be crossed over below 60Hz for best performance."

Also note, the DTS-10 is not a good match with the KL-650-THX or JTR T8 speakers. Both of those speakers are designed to be crossed over to a sub at 80hz and the DTS-10 is best if crossed over below 60hz.

Says who? I had no problems integrating them with EQ and a 80hz crossover. It depends on the room and placement. You know once you put things in a room things change. I can always whip out my old response curves with my JBL's and DTS-10's crossed at 80hz. EQing for me is a one step process. I don't eq flat at the speaker and then at the LP, I EQ for the LP. The first step for any good response is the best location, this is where extra EQ is needed because the DTS-10 just might not fit in that best spot, happened to me.
post #167 of 257
Please lets not start talking about the masses because high performance theater, the DTS-10, etc.. are not for the masses, as well as the thx ultra 2 system. I owned the Ultra system with dual subs and my dual DTS-10's were crossed at the same THX 80hz point. Yes they are not perfect but these two should not be used in the same sentence as performance goes.
post #168 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jklick View Post

Besides actually listening to each, what are some specs or other indicators that might lead me to believe the Triple 8's will be better for movies than the KL-650's?

Honestly despite what anyone says it all comes down to personal preference. Probably not what you want to hear because some of the speakers you're considering are ID companies.
post #169 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jklick View Post

Besides actually listening to each, what are some specs or other indicators that might lead me to believe the Triple 8's will be better for movies than the KL-650's?
I have not listened to the 650 but I can tell you that compression drivers have gotten much better since 2004. The T8s CD was changed in 2011 to a BMS 4550.
IMO the Single 8 (which has a neodymiun CD) will outperform the 650 above 100hz. Below a 100hz it should be all about the subwoofer in a Home Theater. I have no data or proof just an opinion. In a room your size turned up to reference I have no doubt The Single 8 will out perform the 650. Someone may prefer the sound of the 650 (not me) Single 8s can be had for $800 brand new and are smaller. Once again not facts just opinions. There are a lot of individuals on the JTR thread who have upgraded from Klipsch reference systems to JTR. Feel free to go on that thread as well as Klipsch and ask actual owners both past and present for their opinion. People who actually own the different speakers in question will have better more direct answers for you.
Just my biased 2 cents
Chris

Mk
Whats the difference in CDs between the 650 and the T8?
Edited by countryWV - 6/28/13 at 11:28am
post #170 of 257
Well the T8 is a coaxial and the KL-650 is a CD and horn. I never get caught up in parts as I like the overall presentation of design. The OP does not need full reference(that is what all say until they hear real reference with low THD) so the higher power handling and spl of the T8 will not be needed. To me headroom is nice as the speaker will coast along and play very clean. It is hard to say which he will like if both are at the same price. Make no mistake, the Klipsch is a nice speaker but going off my rating system I have to pick the 888 LP I have. I know people who like the Klipsch better but did they have them both flat and optimized? Klipsch might be flatter out of the box bu you can change that and make things equal.
post #171 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

The sub itself is no harder to EQ than any other
+1. Flat out of the box used to be the Holy Grail, but no longer is that the case. Unless you have a perfect room as soon as you put the sub in a room it's not flat any more, so EQ isn't an option, it's a necessity. That being the case it really doesn't matter if it's flat out of the box. When you factor in cabin gain you're usually better off if it doesn't go flat all the way down.
post #172 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by countryWV View Post


I have not listened to the 650 but I can tell you that compression drivers have gotten much better since 2004. The T8s CD was changed in 2011 to a BMS 4550.
IMO the Single 8 will outperform the 650 above 100hz. Below a 100hz it should be all about the subwoofer in a Home Theater. I have no data or proof just an opinion. In a room your size turned up to reference I have no doubt The Single 8 will out perform the 650. Someone may prefer the sound of the 650 (not me) Single 8s can be had for $800 brand new and are smaller. Once again not facts just opinions. There are a lot of individuals on the JTR thread who have upgraded from Klipsch reference systems to JTR. Feel free to go on that thread as well as Klipsch and ask actual owners both past and present for their opinion. People who actually own the different speakers in question will have better more direct answers for you.
Just my biased 2 cents
Chris

Mk
Whats the difference in CDs between the 650 and the T8?

Trust me the OP'er will not be listening at reference. This I know for sure. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Well the T8 is a coaxial and the KL-650 is a CD and horn. I never get caught up in parts as I like the overall presentation of design. The OP does not need full reference(that is what all say until they hear real reference with low THD) so the higher power handling and spl of the T8 will not be needed. To me headroom is nice as the speaker will coast along and play very clean. It is hard to say which he will like if both are at the same price. Make no mistake, the Klipsch is a nice speaker but going off my rating system I have to pick the 888 LP I have. I know people who like the Klipsch better but did they have them both flat and optimized? Klipsch might be flatter out of the box bu you can change that and make things equal.

In this case, the OP'er for sure, does not need full reference. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

In this case, the OP'er for sure, does not need full reference. smile.gif

EQ and calibration will be Audyssey XT32 with subEQ.

Added
Did not mean to quote myself. tongue.gif
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 257
We already know the DTS-10's are out due to WAF becuase if any subs will fail WAF the DTS-10, GH, F-20, or any LLT subs are out. High performance but HUGE!
post #176 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

We already know the DTS-10's are out due to WAF becuase if any subs will fail WAF the DTS-10, GH, F-20, or any LLT subs are out. High performance but HUGE!
Ah, just stick some wheels on it and put it in a closet when you're not watching movies!tongue.gif
post #177 of 257
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

None, you have to listen.
I understood that demoing speakers is important, but wasn't aware how heavily this part was weighted. So, if I understand correctly, whether or not the Triple 8's are "better" than the KL-650's is mostly opinion? Nothing more? I was hoping there was a little more science to such things. If that's the case, we should probably refrain from telling impressionable newbies (like myself) that one speaker is "better" than another.

I've heard terms like "neutral" and "aggressive" when talking about speaker sound. Would these be categories for different speaker qualities? If so, would it be possible to determine what kind of sound I like, then narrow my choices based on speakers that are known to produce similar qualities? I could picture this making everyone's life a lot easier. "Here's a list of speakers that sound *insert speaker quality*". It would be fantastic if we could go to our local Best Buy, demo speakers, then create a speaker preference profile based on the speakers we did/didn't like. We could all then have a lot more confidence in purchasing speakers we've never tested.

I feel like this would be possible to accomplish if it isn't being done already. It's probably similar to the analytics that Pandora performs, measuring qualities of songs that people like in order to determine other songs they may also enjoy.

Anyone a programmer? I'll get the seed money. smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown15 View Post

Honestly despite what anyone says it all comes down to personal preference. Probably not what you want to hear because some of the speakers you're considering are ID companies.

Yeah, that's the difficult part. I won't know until they're in my room. However, this thread has been really good at reducing my level uncertainty, hence increasing the probability that I'll like whatever ends up on my doorstep.
post #178 of 257
Personally, I 'd take the 888 over the KL-650. Jeff at JTR puts a ton of work into his speakers, overbuilds everything to the max, and uses top shelf components. Klipsch on the other hand (which I happen to have owned many klipsch speakers) uses oem parts to control cost and are sometimes of lower quality. If you can get 5 triple 8's for 2 grand I'd jump at that opportunity. Sure you may not need the extra volume, but it's better to have the capability and not always use it, then to not.

Either way I think you'll end up happy though. I've heard the single 8s before and it blew my mind how he was getting that much sound out of a single 8 inch coaxial driver.




See my thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1469504/klipsch-klf-30-vibration-repair

While the klipsch klf-30 is a highly regarded speaker, it is also made with cheap cabinets and inexpensive components. I still own them today because of the fantastic performance/dollar ratio and do not own any JTR products. Not that I don't want to- just don't have the $$

I've been to JTR's facilities before and seen the innards of his speakers and can attest to the high level of quality.
post #179 of 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jklick View Post

if I understand correctly, whether or not the Triple 8's are "better" than the KL-650's is mostly opinion? Nothing more? I was hoping there was a little more science to such things.
There is a lot of science, if you have all the necessary data. Very few manufacturers provide it. Neither JTR nor Klipsch do, but that's not a knock on them, they're no worse than most.
post #180 of 257
I guess you can say the obvious things like size, output, extension, etc.. but sound quality will always be subjective. I like the Klipsch movie experience better based on the size of the sound, it sound much larger than the 888's. It gave that cinema sound. The 888's had more detail and can play louder. I also thought they were better built and looked cooler. If one absolutely loves the cinema sound presentation then they will like the Klipsch better. They really make it seem you are in a commercial theater. I guess I would need to hear the Klipsch again. I did the same thing with the M&K's and bought some used ones to get a feel what I used to like about them to compare to the newer stuff. I will say this, once a good speaker always a good speaker.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Speakers for 100% movies/TV (~$3K to $5K budget)