I did a search and looked through the forums. Couldn't find an answer to a particualr question if this has been asked simple give me the link to find the answer my self thanks.
Ok I do plan on upgradeing my speakers (not my sub just eventually getting another one-love my AA sub12)
I see so many people really on here that have tower for fronts but book shlelfves for rears and very few floors for rear's. Is there a special reason for this. My plan is to get all fronts and rears to be tower's. But is this a bad idea or just personaly prefernce?
2nd question- What up wiht this mono,bipolar speaker jargin. I know some speakres have sound comeing from 2 sides of a the same speaker-os that bipolar or something else. I don't have a budget yet (hopefully I don't get anythign over $200 per spaker, paired would be nice though)
SO whats the advise or knowledge from my Blu bro's and sista's
in regards to having a full 5 tower/floorstander setup, its a matter of preference. ive seen a number of colleagues do it, not only here but in a number of forums.
heres my take on it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jomari
thats the thing, its an ideal situation. in most cases tho, you can see a number of people follow the said 'rule of thumb' would have a number of mediocre set of bookshelves for the entire soundfield. not that theres anything wrong with it (we all have our reasons, financial being first i suppose), but id rather invest my money instead on the soundstage compared to putting that money towards the rears. as long as the surrounds are sonically comparative to blend with the fronts, theres nothing wrong with such a setup.
again, its a preference, and in my opinion, id prefer to redistribute the money towards a better soundstage, and leave enough to compromise for the surrounds. unless you are using sacds or dvd-audio, you wont be putting too much information in them as you would with the front speakers. with all due respect, i find it a wasted effort to invest in such when you can 'bump up' your fronts to a better line, a better performing set instead of the identicals. IF your surrounds tho are mediocre and cannot perform as close as possible to your fronts, then all bets are off.
this may lead to a very opinionated discussion. the whole tower vs bookshelf speakers is a very subjective topic at times, and hopefully others can keep an open mind towards this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckle
Well, now that's an interesting question Beta Man.
I've assumed that, dollar for dollar, towers would outperform bookshelfs, with the deciding factor for many being esthetics and being able to accomodate the size. No?
as beta man mentioned earlier, sure some towers can handle lower frequencies compared to their counterparts, but sometimes (based on klipsch' reference and synergy line) sometimes can hold its own (of course, we are comparing the same line, the same drivers (size of course), and done in ideal conditions.
you have to remember that in a home theater setting tho, most of the lower frequencies will be handled by the subwoofer, care of beta. in two channel (no sub) listening tho, it also would be advisable to have a set of fronts that can handle that as well.
the great thing about quality bookshelves is that not only can it perform the mids and highs of a tower, but can be placed much more conveniently within the living conditions. you can also consider adjusting the height of the speaker in order to afix the tweeters towards the line of 'sight' so to speak to get better imaging, thus the different heights of speaker stands.
at times tho, i noticed that others would prefer to have all matching speakers (including the surrounds) as a 5.1 system, but id disagree. a good example is having someone use towers all throughout the room, completing his 5.1 with tonal and sonic balance. in retrospect, id rather have all that money you've placed in purchasing those two surround towers, and use that to have better front channels (mains to be exact, and if allowing, a matching center), and then minimize the amount you dedicate for the surrounds (as long as the surrounds are tonally matching your front stage to prevent localization).
again, this is just the way i see things, and well, as an opinion its quite subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta Man
EDIT:
Sorry.... I didn't make it very clear.... basically I think bookshelfs should be considered.... eek.... need more coffee!
kinda got that part earlier. just wasnt sure.
invest your money in a great soundstage, fronts and center speakers, and then move towards the surrounds later on. not only will you get your moneys worth in the long run, you will enjoy years of sonic bliss when you know your hard earned money, time, and diligence in research and auditioning, has paid off.
on a quick whim, i say again,
you dont rush when you buy a house, or a car, why the hell would you do so with your home audio equipment?
I use 2 pair of Bipolar Speakers for my Rear and Side Surrounds.
I had used bookshelf and floorstanding speakers as surrounds in my line-up of Speakers.Both FloorStanding and BookShelf Direct Radiating Speakers perform almost identically.
But in using a Bipolar speaker with the surround sound being projected from both sides,there are No dead zones in the Surround Sound Field.
Depending on budget ,room size,room lay-out,and other factors,these may all blend in to see what speakers work out best as your surrounds.
But once I got my first set of bipolar surround speakers,I ordered my second set(to make ALL my surround sounds bipolar in design)within just a day or two,I was that impressed.
From what I have read, a 5.1 system with all towers is better suited for multichannel music (MCM) since some instruments can have a fuller range of sound. Additionally, MCM is far more directional than a 5.1 home theater (HT).
In an HT, surrounds are better served by bookshelves or bipole/dipole speakers because the frequency range is not as relevant with movies. In HT, surround is more ambient and acts as a filler. It is far less directional than MCM.
From what I have read, a 5.1 system with all towers is better suited for multichannel music (MCM) since some instruments can have a fuller range of sound. Additionally, MCM is far more directional than a 5.1 home theater (HT).
i wouldnt consider towers to be better when it comes to multichannel audio (DVD-A and SACD), when a bookshelf can do the same thing that a tower can, except for its lower frequencies. There is rarely any frequencies found lower than 80hz to be found on both these formats in the surrounds.
Quote:
In an HT, surrounds are better served by bookshelves or bipole/dipole speakers because the frequency range is not as relevant with movies. In HT, surround is more ambient and acts as a filler. It is far less directional than MCM.
not necessarily, it really depends on what the owner needs. you'd get different responses from a direct radiating speaker, from a di/bipole setup.
you also have to consider placement, as well as room interaction to get the best results.
The disadvantage to using full sized towers for surrounds is the greater distance needed between the speakers and seating area to get the full range of sound. If they're butted up close to your seating area.... you'll lose alot of sound. And of course for many, I guess that appearance is a big factor.
If you have the space needed.... I say go for it. I have full size towers for my side surrounds...... and when I added them.... the difference was great. It gave a much fuller sound than the satellites I was using (that are now my rear surrounds.) Honestly.... I've never owned bookshelf speakers... so I can't give an opinion on whether they would sound just as full as towers. If you do go with bookshelves for sound... you also have to take into account the cost of speaker stands. Furniture quality stands that allow you to hide the wires in the base aren't cheap... and in the long run towers may be the better buy.
The other bonus, in my particular set-up, is running multi-channel stereo when I have parties. Each of my side surrounds is close to an entry into the next room. I just move those side surrounds into the next room and have great stereo music in both rooms, which leaves the receiver I have in the next room free to run my outdoor audio. (You'd have to look at my gallery to see what I mean.)
SO for music its a yes for all tower's. BUT for movies on Blu whcih is what My system will be for 99.999999999999% of the time bookshelf rears is the way I should go. right?
ugh. no. ive indicated this in my previous posting, mentioning that a very capable monitor can definitely perform identical to a floorstanding one as a surround. there is nothing, nothing under 80hz that is sent towards the rear speakers, thus eliminating the need for towers. if you are spending money for a complete set, id rather delegate a larger amount of money towards the frontstage rather than 'equally' spreading them towards towers.
Quote:
BUT for movies on Blu whcih is what My system will be for 99.999999999999% of the time bookshelf rears is the way I should go.right?
again neos, we've pointed out
- stickies (refer to previous posting)
- and our views on this topic.
- to give you an opinion once again, it really depends on what you'd like to acheive. is it for spatiality? is it for directionality? ambient effects? give me your bookshelves and i think a good set of dipoles or bipoles can do even better. a quick read into the stickies can go a long way. big daddy has taken a long amount of time and dedication in creating them, and have posted these for others to take foregranted.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Rear/surround speaker question's
Linear Mode
