Home theater speakers

[theorigamist]

My parents want to get a set of speakers that will be better than the built in speakers of their HDTV. I think they would rather have 2.1 than 5.1, since they probably don't care too much about surround sound and they won't want cables going around the room. They also need a separate set of speakers/CD player for their living room. The goal for this set of speakers is good sound quality (these will be used mostly for classical music) and a small footprint.

They want to spend about $500 on each set of speakers. If one set can be done more cheaply, then the budget for the other one can be increased. I was thinking about the following speakers, but I don't know much about speakers and I was hoping people would have comments/recommendations.

1. For the TV: 2x Klipsch RSX-4 Satellites + Onkyo subwoofer? Or JBL subwoofer? I know very little about home theater speakers. Are these speakers any good? I couldn't find Klipsch subwoofers (to match the Klipsch satellites) for under $300 or so, which would put the speakers above budget. Is it okay to mix brands between the satellites and the sub?

2. For the living room: Bose wave. Speakers and CD player all in one for a compact footprint. Bose = probably very good audio quality?

Any comments and recommendations would be very helpful.

[cerbie]

2. Probably not.

Not sure about the speakers.

IMO, your next step should be to go on over to http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/, and ask there.

[J the Ninja]

1. Mixing brands between speakers and subs is fine. In fact, in a lot of cases, you can get better speakers and a better sub by mixing and matching, since a company that does one well does not necessarily do the other one well. You will also need an AV Receiver, to drive the speakers, and run the bass management so the sub has a signal (most subs are self-powered, meaning they have their own amp.)

2. Not "probably not", try "definitely not". Bose does not use high-tech or superior components, despite their ad claims. Their gear consists by and large of simple, tradional designs with cheap parts that don't last long. There is an unbelievable amount of corner cutting to achieve the small form factor. Consumers believe it's possible with "space age technology" because, after all, that really is true with things like computers and LCDs: With technological advancements, we really can pack superior performance into tighter and tighter space. With audio gear though, it is often not an issue of how small we can build something, but how much space it needs to generate the proper sound efficiently. Physics does not allow for smaller speakers without compromises. It's just the way it works.

[mosc]

I send this link out a lot. If you want a real sub for cheap, look at behringer:
http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHB2092A
2x8" 360 watts. Uses an XLR input, you'll need some adapters to hook it to a standard amp. I don't see the point in something cheaper than this. You're better off without a sub otherwise.

Studio level equipment is cheaper than people think and beats the pants off of most of the "home theatre" crap out there.

For speakers, you're spending >$150 a piece on something with a 4" driver?
http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHB2031P
$80 each, 8" driver.

[theorigamist]

Sorry for the long silence. I've been really busy this week.

cerbie: Thanks for the link. I'll ask around over there as well.

You're better off without a sub otherwise.

I actually think a system without a dedicated subwoofer might be preferable for space reasons. Would the speakers you linked to be good without an additional sub?

[Dream]

As a rule of thumb, don't buy studio equipment for consumer uses. It has different concerns, like flat frequency response and eliminating colour than consumer equipment. Your money generally goes to exacting standards with studio equipment, rather than entirely to reproductive quality. And remember that the audio component of DVDs will be mixed assuming it will be played on consumer, and not studio equipment. For this reason alone I'd avoid Behringer products. That is entirely aside from Behringer's exceedingly poor reputation among audio professionals, most of whom it is fair to say would avoid having Behringer equipment in their signal chains if at all possible. If you are looking at spending a thousand dollars overall, you can do much better with high end consumer gear than with cheap studio stuff.

[mosc]

So they value flat frequency response but their quality is shit? What? So like some $1000 bose system-in-a-box is inherently superior because it takes into consideration the needs of a home theatre over a studio? What the hell? So you're basically saying flat frequency response is bad for a home theatre? I'll tell you why people think Berhinger is crap. Because it costs 1/10th of what they're comparing it to. No, they're not excellent studio monitors but they're dirt cheap for what you get and beat the hell out of "home theatre" crap that gets sold these days.

I actually think a system without a dedicated subwoofer might be preferable for space reasons. Would the speakers you linked to be good without an additional sub?

Subs are somewhat over-rated. From a home theatre perspective, their main function is usually just to create rumble. It's pitchless vibration. If you're not going to miss that, you can easily remove it from your system. Subs did not become popular until fairly recently. Amar Bose was a founding father of the stand alone sub craze in the late 1960s mostly out of his belief that humans could not detect direction of sound under 500hz. Of course, this was later shown to be utter bullshit but the craze was in full force. Removing decent base response from the individual channel speakers allows you to get away with smaller drivers (those tiny little speakers you always think of when you hear "bose"). This has endured IMHO mostly because it means you can make a powerful system cheaply. 5.1 means 5 high/mid drivers and 1 low driver which is a lot cheaper than 5 high/mid drivers and 5 low drivers (or more commonly 5 high and 5 mid/low). From a sound quality perspective, the central high volume-low quality base driver is far from ideal.

Do you want surround sound or just 2 speakers? If you buy the "Berhinger is crap" argument and want another brand, event makes a monitor called the TR-8XL which has an 8" driver and 150 watts of power good down to 35hz. Their most common form is a pair of self powered monitors. Most decent amps have a "line output" which you would use to feed these. They also need to plug into the wall themselves (they have their own amps and crossovers internally). The reason I ask if you want surround or not is because generally amplifiers don't provide line outputs for the rear and center channel. Because of that you'd need unpowered speakers, at least for the other channels.

[Dream]

So you're basically saying flat frequency response is bad for a home theatre?

Yes. Mixes for these systems assume that people will be using a system with a shaped response, one designed to flatter the listener into thinking their audio is more alive and resent in the room. This usually means a few db of boost in the mid range, to accentuate people's voices and to a lesser extent the melodic content of music, along with a boost in the low end to add weight to sound effects. The mixes also assume a 5.1 setup, though some DVDs have a 2.1 option that has been independently mixed. These mixes are done in multichannel, so crossovers are irrelevant and subwoofers are assumed to be present.

I cannot stress this enough: Commercial Mixes Are Made To Sound Good On Commercial Equipment.

I'll tell you why people think Berhinger is crap.

No you won't, not until you provide some details of how you've come by the credentials and experience to make that claim. Which of these implied "ten times the price of Behringer" monitoring systems have you used, and to do what with? Have you actually tried out many low-to-mid budget competitors of Behringer products to be able to confidently give the advice that that choice is the right one? Have you thought about how insane it is to put 300 watts of power into a TV sound system in two 15x10x10in boxes that weigh over 22kg together?


theorigamist:

Go and listen to the systems you've considered in your OP, and to their competitors. There is no substitute for your own ears. Listen carefully and listen to really good quality DVDs that are recommended for their audio quality. (Do some Googling to find recs, there should be discussions on audiophile boards.) Go to a dealer who is reputable and knowledgable, and tell them your criteria. If they're all they are cracked up to be, they'll let you listen, and let you use your own material. If you have to pay a bit more than Amazon, it's worth it to make the right choice. Remember that no one can tell you what sounds good to you, and this is a seriously subjective area in which there are no right answers. Do all the same things for the living room speakers, and bring your parent's CDs and a classical music fan to listen with. And think about this carefully: Are your parents going to care more about the balance of dialogue to explosions in their movies, or about the detail and transparency in their music?

From your OP, I'd spend a lot on a good pair of small to medium sized speakers and an amp for the living room, and the rest on the best sounding 2.1 system you can afford after that. But remember this, as I can't say it often enough: trust your own ears, and decide for yourself.

[theorigamist]

The speakers for the TV need to fit on small bookshelves. I posted at the forums board that cerbie linked to, and they suggested that with small speakers a subwoofer will make a big difference. A few suggestions later, and the set up for the TV looks like this:
- 2 Energy RC-minis ($200)
- 1 Jamo SUB300 ($180)
- Sony STR DH100 receiver ($140)
Total: $520

A similar set up will not quite work for the living room speakers, because it doesn't factor in the cost of a CD player. But I think larger speakers than the RC-minis would make a dedicated sub unnecessary. I'm hoping this could save a little money overall, making a little available for the CD player.

[Axman]

Just get some A5s.

[theorigamist]

Okay, it's getting close to the time my parents will purchase the speakers. Right now, the set up seems to look like this:

1) TV speakers: (prices at Vanns have gone down since my last post)
- 2 Energy RC-minis ($200)
- 1 Jamo SUB300 ($150)
- Sony STR DH100 receiver ($130)
Subtotal: $480

2) Living room speakers:
- pair of Audioengine A5s ($325)
- Yamaha CRX-330BL CD player and Receiver ($250)
Subtotal: $575

Random wires: $20?

Total: $1075.

Only a couple more quick questions. The first is that Amazon has this: http://www.amazon.com/Audioengine-multimedia-speakers-total-2-way/dp/B000OABTPQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1258839938&sr=1-1. Are these the same as the A5s? They look the same and cost the same. But they lack the extra "A" in their name, so I figured I should check. Also, could somebody sanity check that all of these parts work together? I'm particularly sceptical of the Sony receiver, since it is very cheap and I know nothing about receivers. Will it have all the right inputs/outputs?

Thanks for all the help.

Edit: I just noticed that Amazon claims the A5 speakers do not need an amplifier. If this is the case, I will probably opt for a cheaper CD player, and get back within budget. Spiffy.

[MotorToad]

I haven't read this thread other than your two posts, but I'd like to make a recommendation or three that I doubt will be similar to anything you've been told before.

My parents want to get a set of speakers that will be better than the built in speakers of their HDTV. I think they would rather have 2.1 than 5.1, since they probably don't care too much about surround sound and they won't want cables going around the room. They also need a separate set of speakers/CD player for their living room. The goal for this set of speakers is good sound quality (these will be used mostly for classical music) and a small footprint.

I don't care for "surround sound" at all. I'm an audio nut, and I think you can do a lot better for a lot less than what box systems offer. Primarily, subwoofers that you can afford are garbage. Just don't even bother, you're better off without bass than the one overboosted frequency that gets shat out of these boxes from Best Buy.

For the TV, I'd recommend this if they want/need HDMI etc for the TV. Even if the TV has enough inputs there can still be difficulties with outboard audio (obv they design this in so you'll need a receiver).

* 100-watt 5-channel audio receiver
* Sony unique chassis design
* 5 HD inputs (3 passive HDMI and 2 component inputs)
* HD film quality with 24p true cinema video signal via HDMI technology
* Multi function audio port (digital media port)

If they don't need that, Sony actually still sells a 2-channel receiver.I see that's the receiver you listed. I really think the HDMI switching and center channel potential are worth the price hike.

For speakers I think Yamaha has some of the best sounding speakers for the dollar. I've also heard some great JBLs that were affordable. This is not a broad-stroke recommendation, though. I have an older model of these and I can say I've never heard a speaker so transparent for the money. $100 a pair, it's a good shot. Not a lot of bass but what they make is completely natural-sounding and articulate. This would be nice to go with them, 3-channel TV can help with the seamless "sounds like you're there" thing. That claims to be both acoustic suspension and bass reflex, though, which is weird. I highly recommend acoustic suspension in the lower levels of speaker design.

As for the other system, I'd hit ebay, pawn shops, garage sales, whatever. I'm a bit of a junky. Right now I have a "real" system (Carver amp MartinLogan speakers), a TV system (Yamaha receiver, NAD amp, and Mirage speakers), a computer system (Yamaha amp and those Yamaha speakers) spare computer system (Advent amp and JBL speakers), garage system (KLH speakers and a sony receiver). Most of this stuff I've collected used, and on the cheap. If you don't have some sort of definite time frame of need, I'd shop around used.

Edit: Forgot the Primary Law of Audio. Speakers are everything. You'd be better off buying $500 speakers and a boom box with RCA outs than a shiny $300 amp and $200 speakers. Think of it like the tires on a race car, 800 bhp ain't going anywhere on space-saver spares; but the spares don't just affect power, they ruin cornering and braking, too. There are a few models of speakers from the olden days that are bank-busting on your budget, but going used and being patient you could make an earth-shattering, symphony-simulating monster for well under a grand. Also, this audiogon site is the bombshitdiggity for used audio. It's like ebay for smart people (usually).

Dahlquist DQ-20


Vandersteen 2 (2c, ce, etc) Several listed.


MartinLogan will utterly blow your mind (with sufficient amplification) and they're getting to the $600 range for Aerius or Sequel models. I will reiterate, these need amps. Big ones.

[MotorToad]

They just fill your ears with joy and satisfaction.

[mosc]

I have an older model of these and I can say I've never heard a speaker so transparent for the money. $100 a pair, it's a good shot. Not a lot of bass but what they make is completely natural-sounding and articulate.

I agree with this. If you want unpowered speakers, these are very good for not much money.

For amps, it's more about your A/V switching needs than the quality of the sound output. I like the Onkyo line, the 308, 508, and 608 are all good values for what they offer. The 608 has A/D's to upconvert any analog signal into digital for the HDMI which I find indispensable (I have a lot of older analog devices). Even the much cheaper 308 has HDMI switching though.

[theorigamist]

I'm not sure how this thread was brought back from the dead, but I made this purchase a year and a half ago.

[MotorToad]

I'm not sure how this thread was brought back from the dead, but I made this purchase a year and a half ago.

Because it might still be important to someone else.