Hello, Obviously I need some help is choosing speakers. I'll first explain what I am looking for. I have a somewhat large room about 20x30. I would like to try to obtain the best of both worlds, that being a HT setup which is also suitable for very good music quality. So many options out there, but I guess if one of you were going to build a system in gradual steps that would excel in both HT and music listening what moves would you make? To give you a price range, this is somewhat flexible. around 8k for an entire 7.1 system. I would like to make this maybe a 2/3 year process. What are your thoughts on NHT, B&W, Revel? Lot of questions here, let me know how you would proceed
They are all good and very different from each other. Also throw in Focal and Monitor Audio. My advice is to go out and listen first...take music and/or movies that you are familiar with and test drive something.
We can't listen for you and you have told us nothing of your preferences and very little of your goals.
You also didn't mention what you will be driving them with and your sources.
I'm assuming you have nothing and are starting from scratch. My best advice is to go to a hifi shop (not Best Buy, et al.) and hear complete systems. Have them explain what to look/listen for, why, and how that correlates to price.
Loudness and features are not the only things that make something good. Things like imaging, soundstaging, tonality, and accruacy are part of the equation and relatively meaningless when described in print. They need to be heard to get a true understanding. The only way is a demo. A good dealer will sit down with you and take the time to explain all of this. Just let them know your plan and budget beforehand.
The more speakers and channel of amplification you require is ultimately going to take away from the end result if your budget stays the same. An $8k 2 channel stereo system will blow the doors off an $8k 7.1 system in terms of music, sound quality, and build quality. No matter how you look at it, more speakers, wires, sources, and amps cost more money. Its like if you need to buy 10 cars with $30k, they're going to be nothing like a single $30k car.
How much of a priority is music? What types of movies do you watch?
A lot of people here, myself included, are very happy with a 2 channel system that is also connected to a TV. Granted you loose the surround sound stuff, but for stuff I watch I'm not missing much if anything at all. Everyone's different though.
Yes I am starting from scratch. I really listen to music and watch movies about the same, however, I would rather have a little more preference in the movies. I generally watch action movies and drama movies. Like Gladiator, Cinderella Man, Mission Impossible, Top Gun, Star Wars, and Troy. Movies of that type. I am just not sure what route to take to get good performance for movies and for music.
IMO I would take 4 grand and put it into the theater, than the other 4 grand into a separate two channel system. Just an idea. I have a two channel system upstairs that blows away my theater for music, it is also connected to a DVD player. However, my theater downstairs completely kills it in sound quality when it comes to pretty much any movie I watch. Big time. I go from watching a movie on a good audio system to watching one that sounds better than the theater. But I can say the same, the other way around, when it comes to music. 4 Grand, if you shop right, will buy you a very very good sounding 5.1 system. 4 grand will also buy you a very good two channel system, especially if you shop for used stuff. Audiogon.
Just to add to your confusion Ryan. You can get a jaw dropping 2 channel stereo for $8K. I personally do not find much jaw dropping with surround sound. I can get the same turbulence on "Snakes on s Plane" with my 2-Channel as I could with my HT which has 2 subs. Click on my name to see my profile which list my system parts. However I cannot get the same sound quality (SQ) with my HT that I can with my 2 channel.
How about a hyrbrid. A left and right front HT speaker, higher end, that are driven by a dedicated two channel system. Then you can add Center Channel (though with the right 2 channel you should not need it) and 2 rear speakers.
If I was committed to what you were doing I would get very good two channel system, a surround pre-amp, Bryston has a nice one, and another lesser 2 channel amp. I would skip the center channel altogether, set up the processor for 4 speakers, and go front left right out to the Aux in of the very good two channel system, and rear left and right out to an ok amp for the surround effects.
If a hybrid is the best otion, and 8k is the real budget, then I would have a ball setting it up! yes a very good processor and stereo amp with solid mains speakers. Then add a 2 or 3 channel amp and the remaining speakers. The heart of this setup is a quality processor, as MW stated.
"I personally do not find much jaw dropping with surround sound. I can get the same turbulence on "Snakes on s Plane" with my 2-Channel as I could with my HT which has 2 subs."
Ok, of course, not a fair comparison.lol. Stick a Gallo center, rears, sub, and blu-ray player on your two channel system and Snakes on a Plane all of sudden gets VERY bumpy.lol
Most on here, that I respect greatly, think that a very good two channel system will be just as good as a DECENT surround sound system playing movies. Well of course. A VERY GOOD two channel system up against a VERY GOOD surround sound system will get spit on when competing for movies.
Now the Hybrid system idea I like.
"An $8k 2 channel stereo system will blow the doors off an $8k 7.1 system in terms of music, sound quality, and build quality"
Music, yes. Build quality,yes. Sound quality? Depends. What are you watching? How about a blu-ray movie in uncompressed PCM Audio. Then what? That 8k surround system now blows the ph$#cking S$#hit out of the 8k music system.
I don't care how well your speakers image, you can't replace a good center channel speaker when it comes to demanding surround sound. In this case the center becomes the most important speaker in the whole system. Movies today are becoming more demanding. Meaning, better quality, uncompressed, audio. Its here, its now. You can't replace a good surround sound system with a good music system when it comes to enjoying movies to the fullest. Sorry just my opinion.
I understand what you guys are experiencing, but GUYS!!!, you have 8K Music systems, and 2K surround sound systems....ahh...of course you can make due on your two channel systems.lol.
That said, I still enjoy two channel listening better. So nobody bite my head off.lol
The Hybrid system would be sweet. Although, like MW stated, you will need a wicked processor. Something like the Bryston, or McIntosh surround sound pre amps with full analogue by-pass. The best of both worlds. However, either one will cost you at least half your budget.
4 Grand for Processor 500 for blu-ray player
Leaving you 3500 for speakers and sub. It can be done, and could sound great for both music and movies.
Keep in mind our preferences. I don't care much for Star Wars and the like. The stuff I watch has just about all the information I need right up front. How much true surround is in shows like The Office and movies like Made? Not very much, if any.
But my preferences and and Ryan's preferences are different. Hence why I asked what he's watching. In his case, an $8k 2-channel system isn't going to do for him what it would do for me. He's better off buying a mutli channel system in some form. a 5.1 or 7.1 system will probably be his best bet from an ease of set up and compatability standpoint.
There are some companies that make excellent sounding systems that'll do justice to both music and movies. Bryston, McIntosh, Arcam, Naim, and Linn immediately come to mind. Different price points and types of sounds.
An excellent sounding and very simple system to look into is the Naim n-Vi and N-Sat speakers. Naim isn't a company that's going to skimp on performance or build quality. Its not a universal recommendation though. Naim is a love it or hate it company. It has some power limitations, but Naim watts aren't your average watts. Add to that the N-Sat speaker system matches perfectly and is very easy to drive. Rather than more amp power, it has more speaker sensitivity, which is a far more efficient way of doing things.
"Music, yes. Build quality,yes. Sound quality? Depends. What are you watching? How about a blu-ray movie in uncompressed PCM Audio. Then what? That 8k surround system now blows the ph$#cking S$#hit out of the 8k music system."
My point was that, using round numbers, a $5k pair of speakers will have better sound quality than a $5k 7.1 speaker package will. Exceptions exist, as some are over-priced and some are over-achievers. All things being as equal as they can be, the 7.1 package won't be as good in shear sound quality, but will do some things that 2 speakers (no matter how good) can't do. I was thinking of better sound quality in music terms.
For the record, I don't own a surround system. Just the stereo. All my money is tied up in that
Mike- As long as your watching it in two channel I suppose, then it would be fine. Multi-Channel..then you would be missing the dialogue all together. I wasn't saying that those sweet Gallo's you have don't image like a mother, because I know they would. I was just saying with the style of movie watching he is into, I feel he will need the center, so the dialogue is not missing. If he were watching cable tv, or like Stu stated, the Office. Then yes, surround sound becomes useless. Ryan, is probably looking at watching Blu-Ray on some hardcore Un-Compressed PCM audio or some HD formats perhaps. Am I wrong Ryan? I very well could be.
Stu- Cool man, I figured that's what you meant, just checking.lol.
It really really depends on the material. Don't get me wrong, I much rather own a 8k audio system any day then a 8k surround system. But there IS material, as Stu stated, that will still sound better on the 8k surround system. Even though the speakers and amps will be of less quality. If you seen my movie collection, you would understand where I am coming from.lol.
To add it should be about the system being capable of what he wants to do as well.
My systems:
Bryston Two channel Pre/Pro vs NAD AVR Rega Apollo vs Sony Blu-Ray Monitor Audio RS6 vs Paradigm
My two channel system smokes my surround sound system when it comes to musicality. But when watching a movie in 5.1 uncompressed audio or even DTS my theater wins out. It is like the big, heavy AVR wakes itself up when a movie is thrown at it. And most importantly, my two channel system is not capable of doing surround sound. Plus I am watching movies on it using a cheap Sony DVD player. Yuck. Its horrible to watch.
Just like music=source first Ryan. Same goes for your DVD player my friend.
Nick, et al, what I was suggesting was a HQ 2 - channel with a processor and 2nd amp for surrounds. Wouldn't a "Phantom" center channel maintain the dialog without a center channel for surround modes?
Hey Mike. Wouldn't that be just watching the movie in 2 channel though? If so, yes you are right. Two channel processor/amps don't do surround sound modes. I could be wrong about what you mean. Or maybe I don't understand.
You mean - High End 2 channel processor/amp? Then a second amp for the surrounds? Or do you mean a very good two channel power amp with a 5 channel processor?
1. HQ Front Left and Right Speakers 2a. Either HQ 2 channel amp with an equal 2 channel pre. Feed surround processor RCA out left and right front to aux in of 2 channel processor. Feed rear left and right RCA out to so-so amp for surrounds. Set up processor as HT but with no Center channel. Having a Phantom center channel means the the vocals are split between the HQ 2 channel left and right. 2b. Or HQ 2 channel Amp, with a HQ (Bryston like) 5.1 surround processor. Use phantom center as in 2a. Surround amp is so-so for rear speakers.
3. Rear speakers from same family as front speakers.
4. Decent but inexpensive 2 channel amp to drive rear speakers.
5. Sub optional.
If I was doing this I would get a MAC MX-136 processor for HT, use my existing two channel system as is, buy Gallo Orbs, and a lower powered MAC for the rears. With the Gallo 3.1s I would not need the sub.
I hear what you are saying about no center channel Nick and I think Frank had something or other a while back that disagrees with my application as well. Perhaps it is untenable to some surround modes.
ahhhh OK I see what your saying now Mike. Thanks for clarifying. The part I was missing is the part in 2a where you are using the surround processor in the mix.
I personally like your 2b. idea the best. The thing I would do different is maybe just get a very HQ 5 channel Bryston, or two 4b's and then add a monoblock in there, so I could still get the center channel.LOL!! Thats just me though. Even If I just through in a cheap amp for the center and rears like a 5 channel Rotel or NAD bridged for the center and then powering the rears. Then have the 3b or 4b powering the fronts with the Bryston or MAC 5.1 processors.mmmmmMMmmm talk about a sweet Hybrid system. Throw in the Rega Saturn for music, and a Sony/Pioneer Elite Blu-Ray player for movies.
"Feed surround processor RCA out left and right front to aux in of 2 channel processor"
I actually did this, and I really didn't like the outcome I got. You really have to crank the two channel processor and even then I could notice a sound quality drop in the front while watching demanding movies. 2b would be sweet, I like that idea best.IMO.
Given that I know MW's set-up pretty well, I would have to agree with him. My set-up is also pretty ok for movies as well, imitating a centre channel, without surrounds.
BUT, not everyone has this luxury of time and space, and so...a 5.1 is a great load of fun! Very easy to place, they can be small but effective. Re-reading the whole thing, yes, it can be done, if you really need to do it on stereo, but yes, 5.1 is there for a reason. I have just been so far removed for such a long time....
