shadow5606 Unregistered guest | Hello there folks... I currently have a Harman Kardon AVR235. I have some big old Pioneer front speakers that I'm looking to replace. I'm leaning towards Polk because I currently have Polk Monitor 30's as my 2 rears and 2 side channels: http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/individual/bookshelf/monitor30/ I'm using a Polk CS2 as my center channel: http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/individual/center/cs2/ I currently have an older Mission subwoofer, 125W or so... I'm planning to upgrade that to one of the SVS subs, maybe the 25-31PCi: http://www.svsound.com/products-sub-cyl-pcpow3.cfm So because of all the other Polks in my system that's what's got me leaning towards the Polks for my fronts too... I'm leaning towards the Rti8's: http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/individual/floorstanding/rti8/ or maybe the Monitor 60's: http://www.polkaudio.com/homeaudio/products/individual/floorstanding/monitor60/ These two options are in my budget but I could probably swing something a litle more expensive. I would really like to keep it in the $700 or less range for a pair if possible though. Soooo... My big question is based on my reciever and current setup (used 95% for home theatre) I'm wondering what everyones thoughts might be |
Shadow5606 Unregistered guest | Oh, since I linked to everything... just for anyone who's unfamiliar w/ the AVR235, here ya go!: http://www.harmankardon.com/product_support/support_detail.aspx?Region=USA&Count ry=US&Language=ENG&cat=&prod=AVR%20235&sjump=&#active |
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3251 Registered: Mar-05 | Since you'll already be getting a very good sub, I'd go with the smaller RTi8, which to my ears also sounds better than the RTi10. The HK235 is a very capable receiver, probably one of the best analogs in its price range. |
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 771 Registered: Oct-04 | You surprise me Edster, here I was thinking you were going to mismatch some Ascend speakers into the system and tell him to dump the receiver for a Panny and you give a good response to the post. The Rti8s or 10s may overpower the centre, I'd consider upgrading it to the Csi3 at least for a more even soundstage, you could always move the CS2 to the rear centre position. Otherwise the Monitor 60 or 70 will timbre match better with your present speakers in 5.1-7.1 playback. Of course you will lose quite a bit of performance especially in 2 channel music. |
shadow5606 Unregistered guest | well... the good news is, I hardly do any 2 channel stereo at all... in fact I should have probably says 99% home theatre to be honest. I was also kicking around the idea os a Csi3 center. I really believe in having as nice a center as possible... when i bought all 4 of the Monitor 30's & the AVR @ the same time the Cs2 was about the highest I could go on a center. I was torn between the Rti8 & Monitor 60 because a.) the Monitor 60 actually has more speakers than the Rti8 (I know not a very good reason) b.) the Monitor 60 is technically in the same "line" as my Monitor 30's but... in most 5.1 programming the rears don't really get used "that" much so I'm thinking that rear matching doesn't matter nearly as much as front/center matching. In regards to Rti8's overpowering my center I could always just pump up the output to the center channel too... I don't generaly listen at such a high volume that the speakers seem really overworked so I'm sure it could work a little harder if I asked it nicely. Sooo... from what I'm reading so far... the Monitor 60/70 would be good considering my home theatre instead of music focus... but in a perfect world maybe the Rti8's w/ a Csi3. One other thought I had was instead of going w/ a floorstaning speaker upfront I might actually go w/ some higher end bookshelfs like the Lsi7. I know that would actually put me over budget but I'm thinking that maybe if I've got a great sub like an SVS then some smaller but higher quality bookselfs might be nice for the fronts... So many options, not enough money... lol |
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3253 Registered: Mar-05 | Kano, well the kicker is that you don't surprise me at all..just your usual petty sniping which does a poor job of concealing your limited mental faculties. : ) |
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3254 Registered: Mar-05 | shadow, I recommended the RTi8s in large part because I assumed you were set on keeping your current Polk center. HOWEVER, if you are willing to change out the center, are willing to consider bookshelves, and want a really amazing center speaker, then I'd have to point you towards the Internet-direct Ascend speakers, whose neutrality and detail would be especially ideal for HT: ascendacoustics.com Read up on their reviews, these are extremely well-regarded and high bang-for-your-buck speakers. They are also known to mate very well with HK receivers, hence Ascend carries HK on their website too (you just have to call for prices). 4 CBM-170s CBM-340 center $906 shipped The following is a long but very interesting account of one person's speaker-shopping odyssey. The original poster ordered some Ascends and took them to various stores to directly compare them to other speakers, most of them costing considerably more and with often surprising results. He ended up choosing some Boston Acoustics speakers (which cost about double) but by a narrow margin. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=591331&page=1&p p=30 |
Shadow5606 Unregistered guest | well... I've read very good things about the Ascends here... How about this... I keep my Monitor 30's for my sides/rears (I suggest this because like I said in a previous post, the rears/sides get used so little, even w/ 5.1 content that the voice matching isn't nearly as crucial as the front/center matching. and... go with a pair of the CMT-340m's for my fronts & a CMT-340c for my center (you mentioned a CBM-340 for the center but i don't see that on their site, maybe an older model?) So with that setup... Ascends for my front/center & my Monitor 30's for my rears/sides would you say that I would have a far superior setup than the Polk all around way I was leaning towards? Financially.. I could spend $700 to get a pair of Rti8's or I could spend $850 to get the 3 Ascends I mentioned above. I know it's hard to say but in your opinion of the Ascends vs. Polk would you say that the 2nd scenario (w/ the Ascends front, polk rear) would be 50% better than the polk setup, 100% better, 2,000% better... (you get the picture) |
Shadow5606 Unregistered guest | Oh, and just to confirm, either way I go I would likely stick w/ the plan for the SVS sub. And just so it's said, I know the best way to pick speakers is to LISTEN to them but the Ascends aren't exactly down the street at Best Buy... lol... hence the million questions on my part. |
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 772 Registered: Oct-04 | I knew it was inevitable. The Ascends HAD to be recommended at some point. |
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 773 Registered: Oct-04 | Shadow, the Lsi series are great (especially the Lsi9), but use a different tweeter than the Rti and Monitor series, given your attitude about the centre the LsiC would be necessary to timbre match the front $$$ The Rti or Lsi series would sound a little off balance with the Monitor surrounds, but will hardly be noticed. I definitely recommend against combining very off timbre speakers in a system - but maybe it's just me as I have a lot of material that makes use of the 360 degrees of sound space. |
Anonymous | "I knew it was inevitable. The Ascends HAD to be recommended at some point." Was that because you brought them up first? |
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3256 Registered: Mar-05 | Shadow, Here's the 340c, it's on a separate page under the "Loudspeakers" menu: http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/cmt340c/cmt340c.html 340s across the front is exactly what I have, and they are fabulous...I chose the 340s over the 170s for my mains because I have a huge 6000 cubic foot room, though when I ABed them against the 170s later on, I realized that the 170s are perfectly capable of filling it up with sound too. The 340s do have a fuller quality at moderate volumes due to the extra mid-woof and the wide-dispersion tweeter, but the 170s' tweeter stays just a bit flatter at high volumes...this is supposed to change with the new SE series though since all of their drivers will be changed out. As to keeping the Monitor 30s for your surrounds, having different/cheaper surrounds is a suggestion I often make on these forums to people who want to stay within a certain budget. The only instance when it would not be a good idea is if you do a lot of multichannel music on SACD/DVD-A. Since your front 3 speakers do 80-90% of the work in most movies, and the Ascends are far superior (better detail, control, and accuracy especially at high volumes) to the Polks, I'd say that they would be a signficant improvement. As to the Polk LSi lines, these are very different than the Ascends and the RTis in that they are 4 ohm speakers, and don't have wide dispersion or high detail but are marvelously warm at moderate volumes. Personally I would not pair them with an HK235 for HT, and particularly not at high volumes. For music and at moderate volumes they are very nice though. |
shadow5606 Unregistered guest | Well I'll be kicking around these ideas here. It's a shame that the Ascends aren't carried by retailers... I know that would really change their cost model anyway though. From a tonal perspective... although keep in mind my use is predominately HT rather than music.... How would you describe the Ascends. I prefer a full or warm sound in general. For example, when I picked my reciever I was up between the HK's & the Onkyos. They both sounded nice to me but I felt the HK had a warmer, more laid back sound. To be honest, when I listened to the Polk mains at Frys electronics I wasn't all that impressed but I was still leaning towards them for the sake of matching. Honestly they sounded a little thin & uninspired to me. I thought that it could have been the room and didn't want to call my shot too soon on them. Would you say that I'd be pleased w/ the Ascend/HK mix if I like a very warm/full sound. I know that's very vuage but I'm just trying to learn what I can! I started to read though that post about the demoing the Ascends but I'll need to go back to it when I have more time as there is a LOT of info in that thread! |
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3260 Registered: Mar-05 | The Ascends are neutral, and the HKs are usually described as somewhere in between neutral and warm. You will get a lot of fullness from the Ascends, but I wouldn't call them "warm. Certainly not "bright" though. Here's how you might be able to hear the Ascends before buying them, like I was able to: http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=1427 |
Shadow5606 Unregistered guest | Still considering the Ascends but I was out tonight listening to some of the Polks. I had listened to the Rti8's & Rti10's the other night and been unimpressed. Tonight I listened to the Monitor 70's & was VERY pleased. I mean they're certainly not the best speaker in the world but I really didn't expect them to sound that much better than the Rti's... The 70's have 4 6.5" speakers whereas the RTi's have 2 6.5" speakers so it makes sense that 2x the speakers would give a different sound but it was night & day to me... I just assumed that being at roughly the same pricepoint that they would be pretty similar... the RTi's are a line above the Monitors in terms of market position too... The RTi's sounded almost anemic... almost bright, virtualy no low end or oomph at all. The 70's seemed to give a very solid sound and honestly didn't seem to loose any clarity or finese. They just kicked really. Gave me the impression that they would give a much "beefier" sound in a home theatre enviroment. I know that my home theatre sound heavily relys on my subwoofer but hey if the mains can get in on the action and make the whole sound stage beef up then that's a plus, right? I'm 1/2 wondering if there was a connection problem or some other factor in the store. Any ideas? |
Shadow5606 Unregistered guest | Still considering the Ascends but I was out tonight listening to some of the Polks. I had listened to the Rti8's & Rti10's the other night and been unimpressed. Tonight I listened to the Monitor 70's & was VERY pleased. I mean they're certainly not the best speaker in the world but I really didn't expect them to sound that much better than the Rti's... The 70's have 4 6.5" speakers whereas the RTi's have 2 6.5" speakers so it makes sense that 2x the speakers would give a different sound but it was night & day to me... I just assumed that being at roughly the same pricepoint that they would be pretty similar... the RTi's are a line above the Monitors in terms of market position too... The RTi's sounded almost anemic... almost bright, virtualy no low end or oomph at all. The 70's seemed to give a very solid sound and honestly didn't seem to loose any clarity or finese. They just kicked really. Gave me the impression that they would give a much "beefier" sound in a home theatre enviroment. I know that my home theatre sound heavily relys on my subwoofer but hey if the mains can get in on the action and make the whole sound stage beef up then that's a plus, right? I'm 1/2 wondering if there was a connection problem or some other factor in the store. Any ideas? |
Shadow5606 Unregistered guest | All right... doing a little research... I've read that the RTi's really need more power from an amp to get their best sound. I was listening to both the RTi8's & the Mon70's off an AVR635. It seems odd to me that an AVR635 wouldn't have enough juice to properly drive a 2 speaker RTi8 if it had enough juice to make a 4 speaker Monitor70 sound great... scratches head... Since I only have the AVR235 do you think I'd benifit from a standalone power amp to help the reciever out? Am I going too far off track here? |
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 3263 Registered: Mar-05 | Sure, if you can afford it then adding an external amp for your mains would be very good for big towers...but I thought this was mainly an HT system, so why sink so much money into power-hungry towers? A top of the line Hsu or SVS sub will give you all the bass you want (deeper and tighter than any tower in your price range, that's for sure) and IMO any 3-driver speaker will give you a more than ample soundstage for HT, especially those Ascend 340s. |
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 192 Registered: Jul-05 | Hi Mr Shadow- I have read through the thread and would like to add some comments; 1. First I am curious as to how long you have used your H-K receiver and how many speakers you power at a time currently? How is your receiver working for you? 2. Floorstanders- I would recommend reconsidering floorstanders in this instance. There are two reasons; You will set a crossover frequency likely at 80 HZ, the factory defualt on your receiever and typical for ht- so extension below lets say 65 HZ really doesnt get you more audio signal. There are some differences in resonance due to cabinet construction, which frankly, could POSSIBLY favor monitors instead. ( Not a definite but truely good floorstanders are expensive and some what uncommon- its easier to construct a good monitor). Anyway, IN HT application you will not use the range of the floorstander so why pay for it? 3. Sub- The sub is key for rockin your HT world. baSed on your use- you have picked a perfectly fine choice. Heck if you can swing, perhaps a meatier sub would give a bigger smile on your face as your friends leave your HT room visibly shaken. The Axiom EP-500 comes to mind. But perhaps a bit over the top. 4. Power driving speakers- this is important you must be careful on speaker efficiency related to power available. Eddie is correct that H-K is closer to honesty on their specs than most other brnads- but 50 watts per channel is 50 watts per channel. There aint no more. SO lets talk decibels. I'd Definetly get an SPL meter from radio shack for many reasons. When I crank the concert DVDs ( Like No Doubt/Peter Gabriel) I like it around 88 DB. Pretty loud. My 70 watt perchannel takes me there with out increasing harmonic distortion but anything above 90 DB or -10 on the Denon is a law of dimishing returns- this leaves my ears ringing anyway so its loud enough for me. My speakers are very efficient and can run at low volumes at 2 watts per channel. Very efficient. Give this thought with regards to your own choice. 5. Surround Speakers- Are critical to the HT experience. COncert DVDs are obvious for this use. But movie soundtracks really use the surrounds, this gives the sens of being in a rainstorm, horses rampaging, helicopters with motion across the screen or any 360 degree effect. You need surrounds to be balanced in volume ( hence the SPL meter for adjustment) as well as , ideally, timbre quality. Its more pleasing on the ears. When you do audition speakers, think about whether one is more pleasing to you sonically as another; which one is more enjoyable to,listen to? You will know your own answer when you hear it. Good luck and have fun! |
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 776 Registered: Oct-04 | I have the HK AVR430 with the Rti8s. The HK needs to be close to 0dB on the volume to start getting really good bass without having to EQ. They will benefit from a power amp, but integrated with a sub they sound great. If properly set-up the sub will support the low end while the Rti8s round out the sound. The 70s take less power to get going, therefore they will match better with the AVR235, especially without a sub or any plans to add power amp(s) in the future. |
Shadow5606 Unregistered guest | Well... I'll start with Marcs questions... I've had the AVR235 about a year now. I'm currently driving 4 Polk Monitor 30's for my rear/side speakers & have a Polk CS2 as my center. My 2 front speakers are some 10+ year old Pioneers that came w/ a packaged system back when you could go to sears and by a semi-component semi-integrated system that sat in a tall cabinet with a glass front that stood as tall as the speakers. The speakers are typical of those made for retail 10 years ago... big 10 or 12 inch woofer a mid and a tweeter. I do like my AVR and feel like it's working well for me. I have a 125w mission sub that I like but I need something bigger for my room. My room is about 600sqft I'd guess. The Mission sub has sounded great in smaller rooms in the past but I feel I need a little more punch in my current space. I guess ultimately I was considering floorstanders because I like a full, warm, heavy sound (not bloated or boomy) The Monitor 70s are pleasing to me when I hear them on their own but the more I think about it... since this is HT & not music I'll be using it for maybe I need to not worry about the full sound of a full range tower and just trust in the SVS (which I don't have yet) to do it's job and stay focused on a speaker with good detail & finesse in the mids & highs to take care of the rest of the front.... hmmm... The rough thing about that is if I'm relying on the rest of the setup to support the mains then the only way to get an accurate sound would be in my home... I guess, bottom line is if I get a speaker like the Monitor 70 that I like on it's own then it should still sound good in the mix. But if I get a speaker thats not quite as "full" as I like on it's own then I've got to have a awful lot of trust in the rest of my system to pull it off. |
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 197 Registered: Jul-05 | Thanks for the response. When the receiver crosses over at 80HZ, very little if any of signal below 80 HZ goes to the mains when fronts are set to small ( usual for HT). So the "full" benefit of floorstanders is not gnerally realized in HT. |
Shadow5606 Unregistered guest | I've played with the small/large setting & I know that for HT the fronts "should" be set to small (all speakers should actually) and let the Sub do it's job... Currently though I almost prefer leaving my fronts as large... I'm sure this is just because I'm using a smallish Mission 125W sub instead of something bigger/better I'd need for a 600sqft room. When you talk about the 80hz mark are you suggesting that for HT purposes that I mostly disregard what a speaker can do for me on the low end and maybe just compare the high end? For example, if I'm demoing speakers, even in stereo (2 speakers only) maybe I should set the reciever to that 80hz mark and just listen to the quality of the mid/top of the speakers sound? |
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 198 Registered: Jul-05 | Yes. If a receiver crosses frequencies below 80HZ to the sub, the difference between a speaker that extends to 35 HZ vs a monitor that extends to 65 hz becomes minimized as they both now are able to reproduce the same audio frequencies. OF course, no two speaker types will sound identical, but quality monitors usually do an equal or better job at mid and high ranges. This is a longer chat but you get the drift. Also yes on the crossover setting. There are some set ups that benefit from a lower crossover setting, say at 60, and in a bit more detailed set ups, there is a very occasional crossover at 40 HZ. Far an away the most common crossover is at 80 HZ. 80 HZ is NOT a brick wall, but by 70 HZ, its all to the sub. |
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 777 Registered: Oct-04 | You also have the ability with that receiver to set the fronts to large, and the sub to L/R/LFE. |
Shadow5606 Unregistered guest | Speaking of that... If I choose for the sub to be LF/RF/LFE do I need to run speaker wire from the LF/RF inputs on my sub or does it all go through the RCA LFE output? I assume this setting would put send a full range signal to the fronts while still sending an LFE to the sub as well as some of the front content? I assume the ammount of the signal sent to the sub would be determined by both the crossover setting on the AVR as well as the crossover setting on the sub itself? Although "normally" you want to set your crossover higher, i.e. 80hz, would there be any major pitfalls to setting it lower or even allowing a full range signal to go to the fronts? I just like the notion of a "wall of sound" and even though the bass of a sub is in theory non-directional I am a bit partial to the idea of some beefy fronts to work in tandem w/ the sub. I guess my biggest fear is the beefiness of the sound... I mean I was in a demo theatre at Fry's electronics and they had some good gear running and a full theatre setup w/ chairs & curtains and all... Big loud system but it sounded a little harsh and not as supported as I thought it could. There was bass but I could distinctly hear the difference between what the sub was contributing and the lack of "umph" the rest of the speakears had. I'm not going so far as to say that I want 7 floorstanders all around me & all set to recieve a full range signal but I guess I worry about going too far the opposite way and relying too much on a sub, even a good one. |
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 199 Registered: Jul-05 | In general, its not a good idea to set large and use subs. What happens is you increase the chance of nulls and voids due to wave cancellation, as well as potentially nasty peaks. Its less clean. Yes. There are pitfalls to setting lower than 80 hz. Thi has to do with Octaves and ranges. You would set crossover to 60 hz if your fronts do 45 well. Youd also want a sub than could go to about 20 HZ- thats where the 60 HZ crossovers really come into play. When a lower extension sub is used with a bigger driver where you really dont want the sub seeing 70HZ due to lack of ability to respond quickly enough to higher frequencies. Surrounds cant be set to large by the way. From an audio standpoint, the best HT set ups utuilize two or four subs. There are specific reasons for this, and this has been studied in a fair amount of nauseating detail. Clearly one sub colocated with each main gets you a clean wall of sound and also can potentially even out nulls in a room. It also helps boost the lower extension DB so rolloff is minimized. Just more info. |
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 778 Registered: Oct-04 | "Surrounds cant be set to large by the way." What do you mean by this? As far as "wave cancellation, as well as potentially nasty peaks" doesn't DVD-A and SACD recommend 5 full range speakers. Would 5 subwoofers hooked into each of the channel's pre-outs be preferable to a full range speaker in each position? |
Silver Member Username: Rysa4Post Number: 203 Registered: Jul-05 | On many receivers surrounds are not given the opportunity to be set to large. They can be run in 5 channel stereo mode however. The comment about wave cancellation etc is a bit more important. If you set the fronts to large and still use a sub out, there is an overlap of lower frequencies being reproduced by multiple speakers in a very awkward set up. So lets so 35 hz is being reproduced by 2 fronts and a single sub; the sub often and usually will be using a different size woofer than the floorstander. SO here comes tonal imbalance, timbre matching is out the window, as well as high mid low volume imbalances. 2 subs matched alone are a bit of a trick to set up to avoid unnecessary nulls, peaks, and wave cancellation. The concept with doing it with 2 fronts and a sub is even more difficult, a waste of power as well; in addition you can get some audio dissociation since the lower frequenices reproduced by the mains and the subs actually occur at slightly different times due to the differences between going throuhg a sub out vs a fullrange; this can be compnesated for and is a somewhat minor point; but its similar to the concept of adjusting the HT for different distances of speakers from the receiver. |
shadow5606 Unregistered guest | That makes sense what you're saying about the wave cancelation. My AVR235 actually does allow me to set my sides & rears as large if I like although I wouldn't consider that running Polk Monitor 30's in the rear. On a side note (I'd check myself but my TV is in the shop so I have no OSD) but if you set all the speakers to small in bass management does that override any manual crossover settings on most recievers? For example... I might want to set my fronts crossover @ 80hz and maybe my rears/sides @ 100 or 120hz... so I'd need to be able to go beyond just the small/large setting. |