|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 178 Registered: Nov-04 | i am thinking of possibly getting a HT setup going. i would like to know if anyone has any recommendations for a small speaker that would match well with B&W speakers. i know the rears dont play that big of a role so i would think that being perfectly matched with my fronts is not critical. i would prefer something about the size of the fluance sv-6. i dont want the weird pod like speakers that you can get from various companies, would like to use one with a "real" cabinet per say. also i would like this purchase to be under $200. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 179 Registered: Nov-04 | oh also, i do not mind buying used or demos if it will get me a good product. thanks for any suggestions. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 181 Registered: Nov-04 | are bipolar/dipole speakers better for surround then regular speakers? i am thinking of buying the fluance AVBP2 speakers. any thoughts? |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 388 Registered: Sep-04 | Christopher, You're better off matching the rears. Although the amount of sound the rears produce is not substantial, they're there to provide a soundfield. If you use a differently 'voiced' speaker at the back, the soundfield will change front to back. This introduces an artificial quality to the field which you will pick up on. B&W DM600s come with a little bracket for you to hang them on the wall. They're more than $200 but they work well and would match correctly since all B&Ws are voiced in the same way. As to the other question, there are several manufacturers and I believe it is part of the spec that the rears should have ambient (dipole/tripole) radiation. Unfortunately B&W's versions are not cheap! Regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 389 Registered: Sep-04 | Oh, forgot to mention, rears should really be at the side of the listeners, not behind. Did you know that? That said, most people put them behind... regards, Frank. |
|
Silver Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 175 Registered: Jan-05 | Chris, if you have budget concerns, I wouldnt recommend breaking the bank on surround speakers because the surrounds only play a supporting role to the front/center. If you want to spend a fortune, put the majority into your front/center because they're the 'lead act' and make the biggest impression. To be honest, the surrounds dont work that hard, and usually only obscure sound effects/background music are sent to the surrounds. If you have a newer receiver that equalizes individual speakers, you'll probably not be able to notice the timber differences if you use a different brand for surrounds. I doubt that most could tell the difference in a blind test, expecially if your receiver equalizes output to timbermatch. Ideally??......yes match them up like Frank said, but excluding the select few with an extremely critical ear, most wont hear timber differences because of the nature of the sound that comes from the surrounds. Franks answer is the technically correct 'audiophile' response, and I don't question that, but I dont think the general listening public can tell the difference in most cases. Ideally, non of us would have budget concerns...wouldnt that be fun?? |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 186 Registered: Nov-04 | thanks guys. well i guess this is my dilemma. i am a college kid with limited space in my room and limited space when bringing things home each year. i will probably leave my speaker system somewhere around my college so i wanted to keep my boxes to a minimal as well as my spending. i dont know if anyone can answer this or if this is a stupid question, but can anyone make any reccomendations for speakers that would sound good with B&Ws. if i can find 600s on the internet like ebay for a good price i would be willing to get them, but i mostly find 601s and 602s which are way to big for me. would it really screw things up if bought the fluances? would i be able to do this equalizing thing with a marantz ht receiver? by the way, im getting a good deal on the receiver off the internet. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 187 Registered: Nov-04 | would a pair paradigm atoms do better than the fluances? i won a marantz SR 4400 on ebay for $250!! so now i am scrambling for some surrounds. i am deciding between the paradigm atoms or fluance sv6. anyone have any other suggestions or ideas? |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 119 Registered: Feb-05 | personally, I would say yes. I love paradigm speakers. The sound that comes out of the atoms is nothing short of astonishing given their size and price. Give them a try, you might find you like them, provided they don't have to go right on the wall. (reason at the bottom) Others are: Bose 151 (yuck) Klipsch RSX series (like these for the most part) Pinnacle (great sound but can be hard to find) Axiom M2ti (not my favorite, can be zingy) Rocket ELT speakers (havent heard these, but people love them) Paradigm cinema series (AWESOME SMALL SPEAKERS!!!) you used to be able to buy the cinema in pairs, not sure if you can anymore. These are about the size of the klipsch quintet, and are musical to boot. Wouldnt hesitate using the cinema 90's as mains with a sub for someone that wants great sound from a small speaker. The atoms would be fine by me, but they are ported in the rear, which means they have to be away from the wall to achieve the best possible bass performance. Look into the cinema series. You might still be able to buy them in pairs! These, IMHO might fit your bill a little better than the atoms. www.paradigm.com |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 120 Registered: Feb-05 | although, the cinema might be what you classify as "pod like" |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 189 Registered: Nov-04 | thank for the suggestions. i think i may run into probs with the rear port. i am not sure yet how i am going to position my rears. i live in an apt. so i have no idea wut are behind to walls. the reason i said no pods was because i thought having conventional cabinet B&W 601s and futuristic "pod" cabinet would look wierd. I may get the cinema series speakers or some other acoustic suspension one for convenience of placement. i'll post when i get my surrounds and reciever in. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784Post Number: 203 Registered: Nov-04 | well i got my reciever in and am loving it. doesnt have as much umph as the hk but it still sounds very good. i have an old klipsch preomedia system and decided to use the sats from it as surrounds. i dont really hear much from them right now. it could be my audio source. i am not quite sure right now if i am taking advatange of the surround channels. i am thinking maybe buying some relatively cheap surrounds would suffice for now seeing that i may end up buying new fronts later and move the 601s to the back as surrounds. how would Wharfedale WH-2 be compared to Fluance AV-BP2. |