[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.