Originally Posted by Elihawk
On a limited budget, it it always best to put you money into the front 3 and the subwoofer. Having full range surrounds might be ideal, but:
1. Expense, not everyone has the budget to get 5 or 7 full range speakers.
2. Content...since much less content is sent to the surrounds, according to Dolby the average modern day sound track averages around 5% to the surrounds, much less need to have full range surrounds.
3 Space limitations.
now, for multichannel music, you can throw out #2
above and sure, 5 full range, matching speakers would be best. But point 1 and 3 don't go away.
So I would argue that it is still good advice to spend less on your surrounds, unless you have a Donald Trump budget!
to be honest with you, if am am to give the advice again on a limited budget i would advice to :
go full range 3.0 or 3.2 depending on budget,
make sure the center channel is the best speaker(we are more discriminating of quality in mono vs stereo),
and get full range rears later.
i had pretty decent bookshelfs for the rears but the sound was so distracting that i took them out and went 3.0 then after a while i added them back in to see if i was missing anything and had to turn them down -4 db relative to the other speakers just to not have them constantly drawing me out of the movie. in retrospect, a lot of this was due to them being at a much higher plane than the fronts, but if i had to go back to bookshelves and sending the bass to the sub, i would rather just not have them there.
Originally Posted by Molon_Labe
My wife is pretty understanding but I think 4722s hanging from the ceiling with ratchet straps might be a bit much for her
this one's easy. bribe her with a new house
Originally Posted by mthomas47
I think this is an interesting topic, and I'm glad you raised the question. I don't have a full range center, but I do have 6 full range speakers (and two matching subs) with XT-32. For music, no contest! I love the sound of my 6 full range speakers, so I eliminate the center and the subs. I actually enjoy a phantom center. My center works very well, however, for movies and TV. One of the things that I still experiment with is how much to use my subs, and I would enjoy hearing other perspectives on this.
With many movies and almost all TV, I continue to run the 6 full range speakers as Large, with a crossover of 100 for the center. It does 60Hz, but I like the sound better with a higher crossover. I then generally add the subs back in, but use them differently depending on content. If a movie has a lot of special effects, or if I want to get up to about -15, or louder, I will usually set all of my speakers as Small with crossovers about double their nominal F3 point--so 40, 60, and 80Hz. I'm probably being a little conservative there. I think it would be very interesting to hear other viewpoints on the crossovers, as the conventional advice to always set speakers to Small can get a little tiresome.
As with several of the other posters, I think there is a real advantage to having similar full range speakers all around, and I went to some trouble to get all the tweeters very close to the same height. I am glad that there are some others who are enjoying movies in a similar way.
i like to have my speakers set as full range and have the subs only do LFE. to me, it gives the most coherent sound. i also do it this way because its how theaters do it and thats the sound im going for. finally, i like to run the lfe channel just a little bit hot
but if one is also sending main channel information to it, it can muddy the sound with the sub turned up like that
as an illustration to the last point,say i have the sub 5 dbs hot relative to the mains and the mains crossed over at 80hz, then many male voices will be 4 dbs hot in the low end, be coming out of the subwoofer, and be a little bit muddy.
now, i dont have a problem doing this as my mains have a better lfe extension that most cinema mains so i dont lose any information that im supposed to hear, and i only do home theater, not music.