Klipsch Reference RS-41 II

[---MIKE---]

I am thinking of replacing my surround speakers (Cambridge Sound Works
-Model 7 I think) with these Klipsch speakers. The CSW speakers are NOT
genuine surround speakers and the Klipsch speakers are. Opinions
please.

---MIKE---

In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=EF=BF=BD 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Greg Wormald]

In article >,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

> I am thinking of replacing my surround speakers (Cambridge Sound Works
> -Model 7 I think) with these Klipsch speakers. The CSW speakers are NOT
> genuine surround speakers and the Klipsch speakers are. Opinions
> please.
>
> ---MIKE---
>
> In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
> (44� 15' N - Elevation 1580')

"Genuine Surround Speakers" sounds to me like just a label. How are they
actually different from "non..."?

I don't use surround sound (or even watch video enough to bother) but I
thought the surround speakers were fairly low in volume and therefore
not highly involved in the sound production. If this is true (I'm
willing to be educated) then the quality would need to be significantly
different to be audible--especially if focussing on the vision.

In the end, of course, it's all up to you, so have a listen to the
Klipsch and work out whether what they do for you is worth the cost of
change.

Greg

[Greg Wormald]

In article >,
(---MIKE---) wrote:

> I am thinking of replacing my surround speakers (Cambridge Sound Works
> -Model 7 I think) with these Klipsch speakers. The CSW speakers are NOT
> genuine surround speakers and the Klipsch speakers are. Opinions
> please.
>
> ---MIKE---
>
> In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
> (44� 15' N - Elevation 1580')

"Genuine Surround Speakers" sounds to me like just a label. How are they
actually different from "non..."?

I don't use surround sound (or even watch video enough to bother) but I
thought the surround speakers were fairly low in volume and therefore
not highly involved in the sound production. If this is true (I'm
willing to be educated) then the quality would need to be significantly
different to be audible--especially if focussing on the vision.

In the end, of course, it's all up to you, so have a listen to the
Klipsch and work out whether what they do for you is worth the cost of
change.

Greg

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:08:14 PM UTC-7, Greg Wormald wrote:
> In article >,
> (---MIKE---) wrote:
>
> > I am thinking of replacing my surround speakers (Cambridge Sound Works
> > -Model 7 I think) with these Klipsch speakers. The CSW speakers are NOT
> > genuine surround speakers and the Klipsch speakers are. Opinions
> > please.
> >
> > ---MIKE---
> >
> > In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
> > (44=EF=BF=BD 15' N - Elevation 1580')
>
> "Genuine Surround Speakers" sounds to me like just a label. How are they
> actually different from "non..."?
>
> I don't use surround sound (or even watch video enough to bother) but I
> thought the surround speakers were fairly low in volume and therefore
> not highly involved in the sound production. If this is true (I'm
> willing to be educated) then the quality would need to be significantly
> different to be audible--especially if focussing on the vision.
>
> In the end, of course, it's all up to you, so have a listen to the
> Klipsch and work out whether what they do for you is worth the cost of
> change.
>
> Greg

The only thing that CAN differentiate "surround speakers" from the
normal kind is that often surround speakers are not required to have
any deep bass, as that chore is handled by the "Point-One" channel in
a video surround system. The Dolby surround spec doesn't require that
the rear channel speakers have any significant response below about
100 Hz. On the other hand, if you are listening to music from a
surround SACD or DVD-A source, bass in the surround channels may be
more important than it is in a video system, so the ultimate
importance of having "genuine surround speakers" ultimately depends
upon what you are using the surround system for.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio_Empire > wrote:

> The only thing that CAN differentiate "surround speakers" from the
> normal kind is that often surround speakers are not required to have
> any deep bass,

That's not true, strictly speaking. Surround speakers might have very
different directional properties from front-firing ones; they may even
be bipoles.

Andrew.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:08:14 +0000, Greg Wormald wrote:

> In article >,
> (---MIKE---) wrote:
>
>> I am thinking of replacing my surround speakers (Cambridge Sound Works
>> -Model 7 I think) with these Klipsch speakers. The CSW speakers are
>> NOT genuine surround speakers and the Klipsch speakers are. Opinions
>> please.
>>
>> ---MIKE---
>>
>> In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44� 15' N - Elevation 1580')
>
> "Genuine Surround Speakers" sounds to me like just a label. How are they
> actually different from "non..."?

Well I think typically surround speakers don't produce mids and lows.

Edmund



> Greg

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:55:38 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> > The only thing that CAN differentiate "surround speakers" from the
> > normal kind is that often surround speakers are not required to have
> > any deep bass,
>
> That's not true, strictly speaking. Surround speakers might have very
> different directional properties from front-firing ones; they may even
> be bipoles.
>
> Andrew.

What part of "Can differentiate" and "often... not required" do you
not understand? Neither of those terms were exclusive when I studied
English grammar as a school boy. I'll admit that it was many years
ago, but I don't think the language has changed THAT MUCH in the
ensuing years. After all, I can still communicate with you! 8^)

Fact is, almost any speaker that is suitable for a pair of "front"
speakers is also suitable for surround speakers. But Dolby and others
devised their cinema surround systems to not require full-range
speakers on the sides or in the rear for cost reasons. That doesn't
mean that you can't use full range speakers with excellent results.
One of the best surround systems I know of consist of a pair of
Magnepan MG-3.7s in the front and a pair of Magnepan MG-3.7s in the
rear as well. Admittedly the owner uses them mostly to listen to SACD
surround (I.E. music), they nonetheless work splendidly for movies as
well.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" > wrote in message
...
>
> The only thing that CAN differentiate "surround speakers" from the
> normal kind is that often surround speakers are not required to have
> any deep bass, as that chore is handled by the "Point-One" channel in
> a video surround system. The Dolby surround spec doesn't require that
> the rear channel speakers have any significant response below about
> 100 Hz. On the other hand, if you are listening to music from a
> surround SACD or DVD-A source, bass in the surround channels may be
> more important than it is in a video system, so the ultimate
> importance of having "genuine surround speakers" ultimately depends
> upon what you are using the surround system for.

The use of front speakers that have similarly limited bass response is
facilitated by the use of subwoofer(s) which is often done.

The use of main speakers with non-unipolar response has been common for
decades. This includes both bipolar and radial/omni directional speakers.

Mirage Acoustics and Deftech come to mind as manufacturers of speakers that
are obviously designed for use as front speakers that have bipolar response.

http://www.definitivetech.com/products/series/original-bp/

http://www.miragespeakers.com/about/history/

The correct answer appears to be that there is little or nothing about the
design of a speaker that obliges it to be used as either a front or surround
speaker.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:55:38 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>>Audio_Empire > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The only thing that CAN differentiate "surround speakers" from the
>>>normal kind is that often surround speakers are not required to have
>>>any deep bass,
>>
>>That's not true, strictly speaking. Surround speakers might have very
>>different directional properties from front-firing ones; they may even
>>be bipoles.
>>
>>Andrew.
>
> What part of "Can differentiate" and "often... not required" do you
> not understand? Neither of those terms were exclusive when I studied
> English grammar as a school boy. I'll admit that it was many years
> ago, but I don't think the language has changed THAT MUCH in the
> ensuing years. After all, I can still communicate with you! 8^)

Well, by the same sword you wield, we find Andrew saying things
like:

"That's not true, strictly speaking."

and

"... might have very different directional properties,..."

and

"they may even be ..."

Perhaps a time machine a an trip back to those days of yore
when you were a school boy might help understand that words like
"might" and "may" also leave a lot of wiggle room.

All that being said, having been quite involved at the industry
end of the home theater speaker development, it should be noted
that a VERY large part of the rationale behind the development
of dedicated surround speakers was pure, unadulterated marketing,
which left many of the actual physical properties and requirements
firmly in the dust.

One principle reason for the development of surround speakers as
they were was simply to balance the "sting" of buying MORE speakers
with several justifications:

1. More SMALL speakers are better than a few "big" ones. What
"better" meant is left wholely undefined, thus up to sales
to put meaning to,

2. The surround speakers had a "special" job to do, therefore
they needed to be "special," thus you need to replace your
"non-special" speakers you're using now with these new
"special" speakers,

3. Speaker companies don't make any money on the speakers
you already own, just like record companies don't make
any money on the old-fangled CDs you already won, you have
to buy new-fangled surround speakers and new-fangled
CDs, SACDs, and so on,

But, some of these justifications can have a valid, non-
marketing foundation:

4. In some (maybe many) cases, physical placement is simply not
possible with large speakers: smaller speakers may be the
only way to get there (assuming you've already bought into
the premise of surround to begin with),

5. Who has 2 pairs of loudspeakers kicking around, half of
which aren't doing anything.

To the original poster: try them, if they work for you, you're
done, and you short-circuited reasons 1 through 5 very thoroughly.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, March 25, 2013 6:49:40 AM UTC-7, Dick Pierce wrote:
> Audio_Empire wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:55:38 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> >>Audio_Empire wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The only thing that CAN differentiate "surround speakers" from the
> >>>normal kind is that often surround speakers are not required to have
> >>>any deep bass,
> >>
> >>That's not true, strictly speaking. Surround speakers might have very
> >>different directional properties from front-firing ones; they may even
> >>be bipoles.
> >>
> >>Andrew.
> >
> > What part of "Can differentiate" and "often... not required" do you
> > not understand? Neither of those terms were exclusive when I studied
> > English grammar as a school boy. I'll admit that it was many years
> > ago, but I don't think the language has changed THAT MUCH in the
> > ensuing years. After all, I can still communicate with you! 8^)
>
> Well, by the same sword you wield, we find Andrew saying things
> like:
>
> "That's not true, strictly speaking."
>
> and
>
> "... might have very different directional properties,..."
>
> and
>
> "they may even be ..."
>
> Perhaps a time machine a an trip back to those days of yore
> when you were a school boy might help understand that words like
> "might" and "may" also leave a lot of wiggle room.
>
> All that being said, having been quite involved at the industry
> end of the home theater speaker development, it should be noted
> that a VERY large part of the rationale behind the development
> of dedicated surround speakers was pure, unadulterated marketing,
> which left many of the actual physical properties and requirements
> firmly in the dust.
>
> One principle reason for the development of surround speakers as
> they were was simply to balance the "sting" of buying MORE speakers
> with several justifications:
>
> 1. More SMALL speakers are better than a few "big" ones. What
> "better" meant is left wholely undefined, thus up to sales
> to put meaning to,
>
> 2. The surround speakers had a "special" job to do, therefore
> they needed to be "special," thus you need to replace your
> "non-special" speakers you're using now with these new
> "special" speakers,
>
> 3. Speaker companies don't make any money on the speakers
> you already own, just like record companies don't make
> any money on the old-fangled CDs you already won, you have
> to buy new-fangled surround speakers and new-fangled
> CDs, SACDs, and so on,
>
> But, some of these justifications can have a valid, non-
> marketing foundation:
>
> 4. In some (maybe many) cases, physical placement is simply not
> possible with large speakers: smaller speakers may be the
> only way to get there (assuming you've already bought into
> the premise of surround to begin with),
>
> 5. Who has 2 pairs of loudspeakers kicking around, half of
> which aren't doing anything.
>
> To the original poster: try them, if they work for you, you're
> done, and you short-circuited reasons 1 through 5 very thoroughly.

My point was only that since there is generally no reason for surround
speakers to be "special", in this day and age where digital makes the
surround channels "discrete" (unlike the old days when the limited
separation of matrix systems (both passive and active) made the
matching of surround speakers more critical in order to maximize the
location cues), that one needn't be slavishly tied to manufacturer's
or dealer's hype about them. Arnie Kruger put it rather well when he
said: "... there is little or nothing about the design of a speaker
that obliges it to be used as either a front or surround speaker."
That is very true of today's surround systems. Of course, smooth and
predictable speaker response is an attribute that will always improve
the surround experience, but the best advice is try what you have and
don't let advertisers sell you what you don't really need with
hyperbole about speakers designed strictly to be surround speakers.