The Official Energy Speakers Thread

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by Cpt_Dylan_Hunt

Where can the frequency response specs for that sub be found?

Here Cpt.

http://cgi.ebay.com/New-HD-SUB10-Bla...item2ea89fd7f4

[callas01]

capt.,

If you want an inexpensive sub that is an all around good performer, the AA subs are decent. I paid $160 for it. Now while I will not say it is as good as the Energys and Martin Logans or eD or Def Tech Supercube, etc., it will outperform the Klipsch's and Polks really easily. I had a Sony prior to this sub and this sub is rock solid. I have been very happy with mine. There have been a few people that have gotten them and said they have not worked really well. Majority of the people are happy with them, and given mass-produced electronics, its not implausable that there are random issues. But for the most part, many of the members on here like them.

BD did a test to see if it does meet the specs they call out, and he reports back that it did in fact do what the MFG said it would. You can see that on that thread if you want.

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by Cpt_Dylan_Hunt

Where can the frequency response specs for that sub be found?

See Post #3 of the Acoustic Audio thread.

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy

See Post #3 of the Acoustic Audio thread.

The stated respnse specs are not weighted though (+/-)

And in that post, it's the 12 inch right?

According to what I saw in that post, In order to compare it to most subs that are rated at around +/- 3db, it would probably be rated to like 25hz +/- 3db or something like that, or higher anechoic.


Not bad at all. I wonder how tight sounding it is, Im pretty spoiled in that regard to I've become really picky.

Klipsch actually had one low priced sub I thought looked really good for the buck at least on paper. NEver heard it though, but it was 300 watts rms, and extended to 25hz +/- 3 db. I think it was the SUB12, but it was on sale for like $299 CAD a while back. For us Canadian's that pushing what you can get for that price.

[cfurtado]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

Mid volume on the subs is about right or a bit above it is not a problem either. You desbribe it now as sounding awsome hehe glad my advice worked out for ya. Do you feel it should be louder?

If there's no need for it then leave it as is.

Did you read the thread on settind up you sub by Big Daddy?

Amuse toi bien avec ca!!!


Avec un riser pour le sub tu verras ca va augmenter le volume de ton sub aussi, c'est comme si tu rapetissais ta pièce en hateur.

I turned up the volume abit,its better,but 4 2 subs i still feel like somthing is missing,ill get a riser...
4 sure the lack of a back wall doesnt help...
but its WAY better

[hiphophead85]

What level do you guys set your digital output in the source level for your front bookshelf speakers. I am currently using the C-50's and C-C50. I'm looking to ge the best use out of my sound. I have the Denon AVR-790. Should I keep the settings that were placed when I ran Auddyssey?

[arrt vandelay]

Originally Posted by hiphophead85

What level do you guys set your digital output in the source level for your front bookshelf speakers. I am currently using the C-50's and C-C50. I'm looking to ge the best use out of my sound. I have the Denon AVR-790. Should I keep the settings that were placed when I ran Auddyssey?

what "digital output" are you referring to, the +/- db level of the speakers, crossover settings?

audyssey should give you a pretty good starting point for you to tweak to your tastes and ears...

[scarytiger]

What's up everyone? I've been enjoying reading this thread and checking out the photo galleries of everyone's setups for a couple of days now. I just received my Take Classic 5 pack today from Newegg, so I thought I would join. If anyone is interested, they're on sale for $149.00 w/ free shipping right now. I will probably add some C-300s or C-500s to complete the 7.1 setup after Christmas sometime. I'll try to get some pictures up in a few days after break-in and setup. Thanks to all of you for your information and pics. It's been very helpful.

[arrt vandelay]

Originally Posted by scarytiger

What's up everyone? I've been enjoying reading this thread and checking out the photo galleries of everyone's setups for a couple of days now. I just received my Take Classic 5 pack today from Newegg, so I thought I would join. If anyone is interested, they're on sale for $149.00 w/ free shipping right now. I will probably add some C-300s or C-500s to complete the 7.1 setup after Christmas sometime. I'll try to get some pictures up in a few days after break-in and setup. Thanks to all of you for your information and pics. It's been very helpful.

congrats on the new speakers. they always seem to get great reviews...

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Hey,

I've been doing some rearranging of my HT. I've done all this before, but I'd like to see some opinions. Looking through different articles and stuff, I noticed that the recommendations from Dolby on surround speakers, differs greatly from THX recommendations.

Check this out: (5.1 is what I'm concerned with)

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_e...ide/index.html

Referring to surrounds : "These speakers are designed to be just above ear level to maximize ambience" And in the diagram they appear at least to be on regular stands, confirming that they don't mean 2 feet up.

And we all know the concensus is to have them higher than "just above ear level"

In looking at the THX speaker placement,

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/51.html

They say to put the surrounds directly to the sides, and above the ears by at least two feet. Totally different than the Dolby site which basically says SLIGHTLY above ear level, (which most bookshelv'es on stands and towers already are), and according to the diagram, slightly back and aimed in. I know I prefer that placement for towers at least, towers direct to the sides, are too much of a blast.

As far as bipole/dipole vs monopole for surrounds, I've been trying to find info and how room size can come into play for the benefits of each. After all some people actually prefer monopole for reasons I'm not aware of. Theaters after all use direct monopoles right? But a bunch of them in a large room . In a smaller room couldn't a well placed, wall mounted direct bookshelf be as good for disappearing? I can see how bipoles would extend the sound in larger rooms and disappear better though, but in a smaller room wouldn't the back wall be too close for a bipole surround to work properly? Or is it the other way around. Small rooms are best for bipole/dipole.

Also, according to the article on this page:

http://www.hdhes.com/tv/hdtvviewdistance.aspx

To get the most out of my 46 inch tv for 1080p I need to be sitting 4.6 feet away. Now that's gonna be hard to pull off!

[callas01]

Capt.

I have heard bi-poles and monopoles. I do think that bi-poles can disappear better but more so when you have your couch against the wall and the speakers are wall mounted. In my living room which is about 13x16 I sit 6 ft from my 40" and have no trouble with the 1080p picture, and I sit about 3 feet from my bookshelf wall. I have all monopole speakers, the distance from my SL and SR is 16 feet, and I have a SB that is in the middle. Most of the time I cannot tell when I have it in matrix mode or not when playing 5.1 movies. I go back and forth from playing direct 5.1 to matrixing to 6.1. Also, I love the imaging of the Energy speakers because I can be watching a movies like Band of Brothers, and have it in 5.1(no matrixing) and think there is an explosion behind me and I sit in the middle of speakers that are 16 feet apart.

I do have the speakers about ear level or just above, and they are pointed in towards the main seating area.
Personally I think you have to find what works best for your room. Since many rooms are different, you just have to experiment to make it work best for you.
Hope that helps you Capt.

Steve

[callas01]

Originally Posted by scarytiger

What's up everyone? I've been enjoying reading this thread and checking out the photo galleries of everyone's setups for a couple of days now. I just received my Take Classic 5 pack today from Newegg, so I thought I would join. If anyone is interested, they're on sale for $149.00 w/ free shipping right now. I will probably add some C-300s or C-500s to complete the 7.1 setup after Christmas sometime. I'll try to get some pictures up in a few days after break-in and setup. Thanks to all of you for your information and pics. It's been very helpful.

congrats and welcome to the site and the Energy family.

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by Cpt_Dylan_Hunt

Hey,

I've been doing some rearranging of my HT. I've done all this before, but I'd like to see some opinions. Looking through different articles and stuff, I noticed that the recommendations from Dolby on surround speakers, differs greatly from THX recommendations.

Check this out: (5.1 is what I'm concerned with)

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_e...ide/index.html

Referring to surrounds : "These speakers are designed to be just above ear level to maximize ambience" And in the diagram they appear at least to be on regular stands, confirming that they don't mean 2 feet up.

And we all know the concensus is to have them higher than "just above ear level"

In looking at the THX speaker placement,

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/51.html

They say to put the surrounds directly to the sides, and above the ears by at least two feet. Totally different than the Dolby site which basically says SLIGHTLY above ear level, (which most bookshelv'es on stands and towers already are), and according to the diagram, slightly back and aimed in. I know I prefer that placement for towers at least, towers direct to the sides, are too much of a blast.

As far as bipole/dipole vs monopole for surrounds, I've been trying to find info and how room size can come into play for the benefits of each. After all some people actually prefer monopole for reasons I'm not aware of. Theaters after all use direct monopoles right? But a bunch of them in a large room . In a smaller room couldn't a well placed, wall mounted direct bookshelf be as good for disappearing? I can see how bipoles would extend the sound in larger rooms and disappear better though, but in a smaller room wouldn't the back wall be too close for a bipole surround to work properly? Or is it the other way around. Small rooms are best for bipole/dipole.

Also, according to the article on this page:

http://www.hdhes.com/tv/hdtvviewdistance.aspx

To get the most out of my 46 inch tv for 1080p I need to be sitting 4.6 feet away. Now that's gonna be hard to pull off!

THX is a little behind. That advice is for dipole speakers. Dipole speakers made sense during the Dolby Pro Logic era. THX has to realize we have HD audio now.

For surround applications, bipole speakers give you the most satisfying effect and are very flexible in placement. In addition, they have better bass response than dipole speakers. Direct radiating surround speakers are good for multi-channel music such as SACD, but not as good as bipoles for movies.

For more information, read A Guide to Bipole, Dipole, & Direct Speakers.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by scarytiger

What's up everyone? I've been enjoying reading this thread and checking out the photo galleries of everyone's setups for a couple of days now. I just received my Take Classic 5 pack today from Newegg, so I thought I would join. If anyone is interested, they're on sale for $149.00 w/ free shipping right now. I will probably add some C-300s or C-500s to complete the 7.1 setup after Christmas sometime. I'll try to get some pictures up in a few days after break-in and setup. Thanks to all of you for your information and pics. It's been very helpful.

Welcome in the community

Congrats on the speakers that was an amazing deal you got there.

As for getting C-500 or C-300 this is wishful thinking to make this work with the take classic 5. I would definitely consider changing the center channel for the C-C50 not the best possible match but it works out pretty well since the C-C100 has completely disapeared.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by callas01

Capt.

I have heard bi-poles and monopoles. I do think that bi-poles can disappear better but more so when you have your couch against the wall and the speakers are wall mounted. In my living room which is about 13x16 I sit 6 ft from my 40" and have no trouble with the 1080p picture, and I sit about 3 feet from my bookshelf wall. I have all monopole speakers, the distance from my SL and SR is 16 feet, and I have a SB that is in the middle. Most of the time I cannot tell when I have it in matrix mode or not when playing 5.1 movies. I go back and forth from playing direct 5.1 to matrixing to 6.1. Also, I love the imaging of the Energy speakers because I can be watching a movies like Band of Brothers, and have it in 5.1(no matrixing) and think there is an explosion behind me and I sit in the middle of speakers that are 16 feet apart.

I do have the speakers about ear level or just above, and they are pointed in towards the main seating area.
Personally I think you have to find what works best for your room. Since many rooms are different, you just have to experiment to make it work best for you.
Hope that helps you Capt.

Steve

Hehe Steve I get that same exact feeling with my C-100 as well since I just cannot use Matrixing with analog input but my Surrounds are 12 feet apart from each other and I sit about 7 feet from the TV and Back surrounds are 3 feet behind my couch.

Olivier

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Originally Posted by BigAl87

Hehe Steve I get that same exact feeling with my C-100 as well since I just cannot use Matrixing with analog input but my Surrounds are 12 feet apart from each other and I sit about 7 feet from the TV and Back surrounds are 3 feet behind my couch.

Olivier

Is that why you use your bipoles as back surrounds? Most people in that setup would use the bipoles as side surrounds and the monopoles as rears. Or it's just what works in your room type of thing ...

Oh, and thanks Steve BigDaddy, everyone, , I'm also wondering if there is any benefit of switching up my c-300 surrounds to my c-200s currently in my other room, and then wall mounting them. Ok, so bipoles are less picky on height I guess than dipoles, but what about monopoles for height? This will cost me a little money so I'd rather not do if it it's not going to be much of an improvement, or even worse, if it make things worse. According to the Dolby site, the height of my c-300s is fine, since c-200s are also direct radiating/monopole, the only benefit to them would be the increased height which according to the Dolby site, isn't necessary. Hmmm I elevated my c-300s once by about 2 feet, and I liked the effect, but often I, and others, simply like change, because it's new, so I would take time to know if it was actually better. I had to take it down though because it looked pretty silly, and the wife would not have liked it at all.

Perhaps when it comes to monopoles, floor standers are better than monopole bookshelf surrounds? I can certainly see this true for music. And then elevated bipoles being optimal for movie surrounds?

Any thoughts?

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Originally Posted by callas01

Capt.

I have heard bi-poles and monopoles. I do think that bi-poles can disappear better but more so when you have your couch against the wall and the speakers are wall mounted. In my living room which is about 13x16 I sit 6 ft from my 40" and have no trouble with the 1080p picture, and I sit about 3 feet from my bookshelf wall. I have all monopole speakers, the distance from my SL and SR is 16 feet, and I have a SB that is in the middle. Most of the time I cannot tell when I have it in matrix mode or not when playing 5.1 movies. I go back and forth from playing direct 5.1 to matrixing to 6.1. Also, I love the imaging of the Energy speakers because I can be watching a movies like Band of Brothers, and have it in 5.1(no matrixing) and think there is an explosion behind me and I sit in the middle of speakers that are 16 feet apart.

I do have the speakers about ear level or just above, and they are pointed in towards the main seating area.
Personally I think you have to find what works best for your room. Since many rooms are different, you just have to experiment to make it work best for you.
Hope that helps you Capt.

Steve

Oh, when you say you sit 6 feet from your tv, is that to your eyes when sitting right back, or like to the front of the couch. Because it's a big difference for me by over 1.5 feet. To my eyes it's a 7 foot distance right now from my 46 inch, and my couch looks so close to the tv, there is barely room for a coffee table. To get that 4.6 foot distance that site said was optimal, the front of my couch is almost touching my receiver (which is right under the tv)

[arrt vandelay]

i've always kept my "dark side of the moon" cd in my car for my long commutes to and from work. i finally decided to bring it in to play on the system yesterday afternoon after work...

was that cd not made for multichannel playback!?! great stuff.

[callas01]

Capt.

I think that unless you have a low seated couch and can get the speakers back far enough that they can image well enough to overcome the barrier of the couch floorstanders may not be as good. Typically with bookshelf speakers you can get the drivers of the speakers up enough that they are not blocked by a barrier. I know that the C-300s have the driver up higher on the speaker, and that may not be an issue for you. But you should test this out because with your room acoustics the way they are it would be anyones guess until you test this out yourself.

I would suggest that you try this. Take the C-200s and connect them to the speaker wire you have the C-300 connected to and set them atop the C-300, that should put them up slightly higher and you can see if you like that positioning better. Check out this picture, and see how they have them up higher so the driver clears the top of the couch.

[BigAl87]

Originally Posted by Cpt_Dylan_Hunt

Is that why you use your bipoles as back surrounds? Most people in that setup would use the bipoles as side surrounds and the monopoles as rears. Or it's just what works in your room type of thing ...

Yes and no the real reason in this case why I use the bipole as back surround is only because it gives me a wider sound field since I'm pretty close to the speakers.

Ideally speaking I would go with THX recommandation and use my bipole as side surround 2 feet above my head and monopole as back surround, in this case there is no indication from THX to put them 2 feet or higher above your ears.