I want to listen to music only and would like to ask:

if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend - is it better to buy a
stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)?

"Andrew" said:

I want to listen to music only and would like to ask:

if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend - is it better to buy a
stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)?


Well, you asked for my opinion and you'll get it!
Stereo, definitely.
You'll be able to buy 2 good speakers instead of 5 mediocre types.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:21:58 +0100, Sander deWaal wrote:
"Andrew" said:

I want to listen to music only and would like to ask:

if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend - is it better to buy a
stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)?


Well, you asked for my opinion and you'll get it!
Stereo, definitely.
You'll be able to buy 2 good speakers instead of 5 mediocre types.

Absolutely. And next time you have $1500-2000 spend, put it towards
a SS preamp and center speaker.

It's better to add to the system instead of throwing everything out
and upgrading. If you spend $2000 on a SS receiver and five speakers, you'll
have wasted $1000 on mediocre speakers.

"TCS" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:21:58 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:
"Andrew" said:

I want to listen to music only and would like to ask:

if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend - is it better to buy a
stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)?


Well, you asked for my opinion and you'll get it!
Stereo, definitely.
You'll be able to buy 2 good speakers instead of 5 mediocre types.

Absolutely. And next time you have $1500-2000 spend, put it towards
a SS preamp and center speaker.

It's better to add to the system instead of throwing everything out
and upgrading. If you spend $2000 on a SS receiver and five speakers,
you'll
have wasted $1000 on mediocre speakers.

thank you Sander and TCS - they are the answers...however please make me
sure - does it mean that surround at that price always offer worse speakers
and so on...??

Andrew wrote:
"TCS" wrote in message

...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:21:58 +0100, Sander deWaal

wrote:
"Andrew" said:

I want to listen to music only and would like to ask:

if I have $1500-$2000 (or =A31000-=A31250)) to spend - is it better
to buy a
stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)?


Well, you asked for my opinion and you'll get it!
Stereo, definitely.
You'll be able to buy 2 good speakers instead of 5 mediocre types.

Absolutely. And next time you have $1500-2000 spend, put it
towards
a SS preamp and center speaker.

It's better to add to the system instead of throwing everything out
and upgrading. If you spend $2000 on a SS receiver and five
speakers,
you'll
have wasted $1000 on mediocre speakers.

thank you Sander and TCS - they are the answers...however please make
me
sure - does it mean that surround at that price always offer worse
speakers
and so on...??


Yes. Absolutely. No contest really.


Scott Wheeler

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:33:30 -0000, Andrew wrote:
"TCS" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:21:58 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:
"Andrew" said:

I want to listen to music only and would like to ask:

if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend - is it better to buy a
stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)?


Well, you asked for my opinion and you'll get it!
Stereo, definitely.
You'll be able to buy 2 good speakers instead of 5 mediocre types.

Absolutely. And next time you have $1500-2000 spend, put it towards
a SS preamp and center speaker.

It's better to add to the system instead of throwing everything out
and upgrading. If you spend $2000 on a SS receiver and five speakers,
you'll
have wasted $1000 on mediocre speakers.

thank you Sander and TCS - they are the answers...however please make me
sure - does it mean that surround at that price always offer worse speakers
and so on...??

The speakers are the most critical component. Subtract $800 for the SS
receiver, and you're left with $1200 for speakers. Subtract another $200 for
the cheap rears, and you're left with $1000 for the three main speakers.
$300/ea isn't enough for decent speakers; maybe used, but not new.
There's a curve where throwing more money at the speakers gives a smaller
return; the sweet spot is about $1000-2000/pr.

Your ears will thank you.

"Andrew" wrote in message


I want to listen to music only and would like to ask:

if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend - is it better to
buy a stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)?

I listen to music almost exclusively 2-channel systems.

Speakers is one of those areas where you can get to fairly high price points
without getting too deep into diminishing returns.

"Andrew" said:

thank you Sander and TCS - they are the answers...however please make me
sure - does it mean that surround at that price always offer worse speakers
and so on...??


It's just the split budget.
$2000 buys you two good speakers or 5 mediocre ones.

I concur with TCS and Arny in this matter.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

George M. Middius said:


It's just the split budget.
$2000 buys you two good speakers or 5 mediocre ones.

You seem to be missing the overall point of surround sound. Let us consult
an authoritative source for guidance.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On making things more difficult than they need to be:

"Well, [speakers] do need to be properly set up and adjusted, and the room
needs to be decent, and the surround speakers need to be properly
positioned. Setting up those parameters is considerably more involved than
what is required to get optimum performance from only two speakers."

This advice is entirely consistent with the Tweako-Freako philosophy of
never being satisfied.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On deluding oneself with visions of the unattainable:

"[stereo sound is] like a window, the sound is up front and you do not get
the large-scale hall reverb where it is supposed to be: around you."

This observation reveals the truth that once you are surrounded, you can't
tell good quality from mediocre.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On adhering to a philosophy at all costs, despite any contravening evidence:

"... two-channel recordings have an egregious form of distortion themselves.
By compressing the hall acoustics into the frontal area, they are severely
distorting what we would hear at a live performance. This distortion is far
more of a problem than the processor-applied 'distortion' that I prefer."

Slavish devotion to principle makes a good drone.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Now, having reviewed these pearls of wisdom, don't you think you should
revise your opinions and fall into line?


No. My ears tell me something different.
Of course, I'm spoiled by the EHEE party line of heavy class A (tube)
amps, huge power supplies, separate DACs and a seemingly idiotic
loudspeaker choice like Magnepans. Sorry.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Andrew" said:

thank you Sander and TCS - they are the answers...however please make me
sure - does it mean that surround at that price always offer worse
speakers
and so on...??


It's just the split budget.
$2000 buys you two good speakers or 5 mediocre ones.

I concur with TCS and Arny in this matter.

Thank you very much ALL for your answers.
At the moment I am mostly convinced to the option of buying stereo first,
but with the possibility of upgrading to surround in the future.
Can I ask you to advice me how to buy this stereo in the way to be able to
upgrade it to surround. As I understand it I should buy Cd player
and amplifier with e.g. DPL option and regular stereo speakers. Is that
right?
Can you advise me on a specific make and model for the price that I can
spend ($1500-$2000)?
Thank you very much!

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
news


Sander deWaal said:

It's just the split budget.
$2000 buys you two good speakers or 5 mediocre ones.

You seem to be missing the overall point of surround sound. Let us consult
an authoritative source for guidance.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*

On making things more difficult than they need to be:

"Well, [speakers] do need to be properly set up and adjusted, and the room
needs to be decent, and the surround speakers need to be properly
positioned. Setting up those parameters is considerably more involved than
what is required to get optimum performance from only two speakers."

This advice is entirely consistent with the Tweako-Freako philosophy of
never being satisfied.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*

On deluding oneself with visions of the unattainable:

"[stereo sound is] like a window, the sound is up front and you do not get
the large-scale hall reverb where it is supposed to be: around you."

This observation reveals the truth that once you are surrounded, you can't
tell good quality from mediocre.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*

On adhering to a philosophy at all costs, despite any contravening
evidence:

"... two-channel recordings have an egregious form of distortion
themselves.
By compressing the hall acoustics into the frontal area, they are severely
distorting what we would hear at a live performance. This distortion is
far
more of a problem than the processor-applied 'distortion' that I prefer."

Slavish devotion to principle makes a good drone.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*


Now, having reviewed these pearls of wisdom, don't you think you should
revise your opinions and fall into line?

Thank you for your input.
I think I will try myself to listen to good stereo and surround to make my
own judgement. At the moment I am going to choose an open option which means
buying stereo with an option to upgrade it to surround in the future. I
think this should be quite a good solution...

"Andrew" said:

Thank you very much ALL for your answers.
At the moment I am mostly convinced to the option of buying stereo first,
but with the possibility of upgrading to surround in the future.
Can I ask you to advice me how to buy this stereo in the way to be able to
upgrade it to surround. As I understand it I should buy Cd player
and amplifier with e.g. DPL option and regular stereo speakers. Is that
right?
Can you advise me on a specific make and model for the price that I can
spend ($1500-$2000)?
Thank you very much!


Hi Andrew,

As for speakers, you ought to listen to them for yourself.
Amp and CD: buy the simplest one (that's NOT equal to the cheapest!)
like NAD, Rotel and such.
In case of an upgrade, you'll be able to still use the CD for music,
and the amp for left and right.
The addition is then in 3 more amps, a processor and a DVD player (and
3 more speakers).
You could opt for a DVD player right away though, it'll play CDs just
fine. A subwoofer can always be added, or built it yourself.
A self-powered one ("active sub") would make sense.

Whatever you do, don't skip out on the speakers.

I'm not naming any brands or types, as I'm not really familiar with
what's currently on the market. Maybe others can weigh in on that.

Good luck!

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Really good speakers have a long life. Consider Klipsch _classic_
systems or some Altec or JBL products (which were often originally
_commercial_ anyway!). A heavy well constructed acoustic structure and
rebuildable drivers, can provide a half century or more of value.

Andrew wrote:

I want to listen to music only and would like to ask:

if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend - is it better to buy a
stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)?

Let's assume you spend at or near the top amount you
indicated. In that case, ProLogic II decoding with
two-channel sources (assuming that the parameters in the
processor are adjustable or the factory defaults are sane)
will nearly always sound better than two channels playing
alone, even if the five speakers involved cost the same as
the two used with stereo.

This does, however, assume that the center-channel speaker
is a decent one (as good as the L/R mains, at least down to
the bass range where the center will route the bass to the
mains or sub) and that it is located properly: not too high
up and preferably oriented so that the horizontal radiation
pattern is not compromised.

A number of companies offer speaker packages (Ascend
Acoustics is one, and they also offer Hsu subwoofers; Boston
Acoustics is another; NHT is another; BG is another still;
and still another is Axiom, but as I noted there are still
more) that should work with you just fine. Any number of
modestly priced mainstream receivers (Yamaha, Pioneer, JVC,
NAD, Sony, etc.) will also work fine with those speakers, as
will any number of moderately priced DVD/CD players. You can
get a fine-sounding player for under $150 these days, and a
workable receiver might cost only $400, and most speakers
are sold for less than list price. It would be easy to have
a solidly decent 5.1 system for about $2000.

You can get very good results within your price range, and
DPL II has the potential to deliver the musical goods better
than straightforward two-channel stereo.

Don't let anyone tell you that two somewhat more expensive
speakers will work better in this situation than five
moderately priced satellites and a good but not really
expensive subwoofer. (One good Hsu sub lists factory direct
for only $300, and the satellites made by some of the
companies I indicated would cost only a few hundred bucks
for a set.)

As a product reviewer for The Sensible Sound, I have heard
too many mid-grade satellite/sub combinations solidly hold
their own against some really upscale systems to believe
that the best sound requires big money. If you go the budget
route you get those three additional speakers (center and
surrounds) and those, added to the left/right mains, will
make for a much improved sense of hall space, envelopment,
and soundstage focus than what you get with two-channel
stereo.

Howard Ferstler

Andrew wrote:

thank you Sander and TCS - they are the answers...however please make me
sure - does it mean that surround at that price always offer worse speakers
and so on...??

No. I have heard 5.1 speaker packages that sounded better
than some stereo pairs that cost more. Indeed, I have heard
some three-piece (left, right, subwoofer) packages that were
easily as fine sounding as considerably more expensive
full-range stereo speakers.

Combine those satellites with a decent receiver and a decent
DVD/CD player, apply some DPL II processing, and you will
get concert-hall realism that is clearly superior to what
even some very expensive stereo-only packages can deliver.

Howard Ferstler
Reviewer for The Sensible Sound

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

"Andrew" said:

thank you Sander and TCS - they are the answers...however please make me
sure - does it mean that surround at that price always offer worse speakers
and so on...??

It's just the split budget.
$2000 buys you two good speakers or 5 mediocre ones.

I concur with TCS and Arny in this matter.

My respect for Arny notwithstanding, I do not agree. At the
upper end of this individual's price point, a 5.1 package
has the potential to sound more realistic than a stereo-only
package at the same price point.

Howard Ferstler
Writer for The Sensible Sound

Andrew wrote:

Thank you for your input.
I think I will try myself to listen to good stereo and surround to make my
own judgement. At the moment I am going to choose an open option which means
buying stereo with an option to upgrade it to surround in the future. I
think this should be quite a good solution...

This will work just fine, and it is a viable option as long
as you are willing to spend the additional money in the
future. However, if you want to limit yourself to $2000 you
will get a more realistic sounding system with a 5.1 speaker
package, a decent surround receiver (with DPL II decoding),
and a moderately priced DVD/CD player.

Howard Ferstler
Writer for The Sensible Sound

Are you factoring in the long term cost delta? A two channel system
using gear likely to hold its value is much easier to put together than
a similar five channel. In fact, using the confirmed fact that each
speaker and amplifier channel of a stereo system must be the equal of
the single amp and speaker of a mono system, which was widely conceded
when JFK was the driving force atop the Monroe Doctrine, each of the
five channels of the five channel system must be wholly equal to the
two of the stereo system to provide comparable quality. Five excellent
speakers are more expensive than two-I don't see any way around it.

Add in the spectre of correct room design for best five channel
presentation vis-a-vis two, and we are talking a daunting prospect.
Nevertheless, some will demand five channels, then seven....so my
advice would be to buy a system of modularity where you merely add on.
This would also seemingly argue in favor of the monoblock amplifier, if
one wants the amplifier separate from the speaker, unless you buy three
stereo amps and leave one channel unused.

wrote in message
oups.com

Really good speakers have a long life.

As rule speakers tend to get lost in the technological dust.

Consider Klipsch _classic_ systems

Klipschorn? Cornwall? Junque.

or some Altec

A7-500? Junque.

or JBL products (which were often originally _commercial_ anyway!).

Paragon, Metragon, 001 system? Junque!

A heavy well constructed acoustic structure and
rebuildable drivers, can provide a half century or more of value.

Technology has moved too fast. Speaker technology being far less perfected,
has the potential to move the fastest.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever (uh, well, maybe excepting the
Karlson coupler) whereas a ****box is a ****box. I am not a big fan of
planar speakers but I have to concede the Quads and some other
electrostats, and the Maggies, do certain things pretty well which is
why they still are valued.

A good horn in a big room, as a general rule, is still the best
sounding of speakers overall. K-horns and La Scalas are still good
speakers properly deployed. (Most rooms are really too small for
K-horns, however.) The Cornwall and Heresy I've never been as fond of.
But if the monkey coffin vendors had put as much money and time into
good reasonably sized horns as they did on cheap-to-build Boston Bland
technology we'd have some better horns now, there is no doubt of that.
Coax drivers have nearly died out, and why? Build cost.

wrote in message
oups.com

A good horn in a big room, as a general rule, is still the best
sounding of speakers overall. K-horns and La Scalas are still good
speakers properly deployed. (Most rooms are really too small for
K-horns, however.) The Cornwall and Heresy I've never been as fond of.

The legacy Klipsch models you mention feature outdated technology in the
crossovers, the bass drivers and also the horns.

If Klipsch were available to re-engineer them, he'd no doubt do something
far more modern that sounded better and had far higher performance.

Klipsch was alive and quite sane, from all accounts, until quite
recently. He to my knowledge declined to substantially modify any of
his legacy products for at least the last twenty years of his life if
not longer.

As you know I completed a review of a Klipschhorn modification
recently during which I concluded a modificatiion was highly desirable.
So I am not promoting the vintage K-horn as a gold standard of
speakers, indeed I believe a new clean sheet of paper design could have
substantial advantages. Klipsch won't do it for many reasons, some
obvious and others less so.

Despite this, the Klipsch speakers work as well as they ever did today
and indeed easily can do better, and that's a very satisfactory level
indeed. This is also the case with many "Golden Age" designs of
electronics, although improvements are possible today in many respects
they still reproduce music very well and in some ways far better than
much (at the very least, I would say most) of the modern equipment
currently vended.

On 20 Feb 2005 17:16:34 -0800, wrote:

[....] each of the
five channels of the five channel system must be wholly equal to the
two of the stereo system to provide comparable quality.

Far from true. In a 5.1 system, the front speakers should be the
equivalent of a stereo system; the surrounds cdedrtainly do not.
in addition, one can start with a 4.0 system to enjoy surround
earlier, then supplement with a center and sub later on, as
budget permits.

Five excellent
speakers are more expensive than two-I don't see any way around it.

True. But a good 5.1 speaker package can sound as good or better
than an (admittedly, higher quality) 2.0 system that costs the same.
This is not a general truism, though, and subjectively depends on
one's needs and taste.

Add in the spectre of correct room design for best five channel
presentation vis-a-vis two, and we are talking a daunting prospect.
Nevertheless, some will demand five channels, then seven....so my
advice would be to buy a system of modularity where you merely add on.
This would also seemingly argue in favor of the monoblock amplifier, if
one wants the amplifier separate from the speaker, unless you buy three
stereo amps and leave one channel unused.

Or a set of 2 and 3 channel amps, assuming a powered sub.

-- Ron

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:51:37 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote:

"Andrew" said:

thank you Sander and TCS - they are the answers...however please make me
sure - does it mean that surround at that price always offer worse speakers
and so on...??

It's just the split budget.
$2000 buys you two good speakers or 5 mediocre ones.

I concur with TCS and Arny in this matter.

My respect for Arny notwithstanding, I do not agree. At the
upper end of this individual's price point, a 5.1 package
has the potential to sound more realistic than a stereo-only
package at the same price point.

No ****ing way. A $2000 setup is going to have $250 speakers which won't
sound anywhere near as good as $800 speakers.

wrote in message
oups.com

Klipsch was alive and quite sane, from all accounts, until quite
recently.

Say what?

http://www.engology.com/eng5klipsch.htm

"Paul Wilbur Klipsch, a great inventor, engineer, scientist, pilot, and
legendary eccentric died May 5, 2002 at the age of 98. "

That was almost 3 years ago!

snip remaining even more out-of-date information

wrote:

Are you factoring in the long term cost delta?

Sure.

A two channel system
using gear likely to hold its value is much easier to put together than
a similar five channel.

Granted. Certainly it is more difficult to wire five
speakers and a sub than it is to wire just two systems, and
we have to take the cost of the wire into consideration,
too. (Fortunately, the lamp cord needed for
just-fine-sounding speaker hookups is cheap.)

Actually, this may be why so many high enders have problems
coming to grips with surround-sound audio. They have
listening rooms that are fine when it comes to setting up a
pair of speakers up front. However, the need to have a
center speaker properly positioned, as well as a pair of
surround speakers (or even four or five or six, which is the
case with two of my three AV systems) properly located, may
make it difficult to set up all of the speakers in a way
that is conducive to proper surround propagation. In short,
the room works against them getting what 5.1 can offer. Note
that this hookup-complexity and speaker arrangement issue
was brought forth when stereo started to supplant mono.

Actually, I am assuming that our correspondent does have the
space and room shape to accommodate a 5.1 package.

In fact, using the confirmed fact that each
speaker and amplifier channel of a stereo system must be the equal of
the single amp and speaker of a mono system, which was widely conceded
when JFK was the driving force atop the Monroe Doctrine, each of the
five channels of the five channel system must be wholly equal to the
two of the stereo system to provide comparable quality.

I disagree. If one wants instrumentation from each of the
five channels with a discrete-channel surround system
(DVD-A, SACD, DD, DTS), then, yes, equal power and equal
speakers is a good idea. (I have maybe 100 SACD, DVD-A, DD,
and DTS music releases on hand and continue to review them
for The Sensible Sound.) However, if the listener is a
classical, baroque, and/or acoustic-jazz listener (as I am),
then the surround speakers need not be equal in quality and
stature to the three up front, nor do the two surround
channels need power equal to what is up front. This is
because the surround channels only will deal with recorded
ambiance most of the time. (Wide-dispersion surrounds are a
good idea, however, even if the L,C,R speakers are more
focussed in their dispersion patterns.)

And with DPL II decoding of stereo material (what our
correspondent is concerned with), the surrounds will mostly
be dealing with extracted hall ambiance. Half or even
one-fourth of the per-channel power is enough. Trust me on
this, because I have measured power outputs on a LOT or
recordings given DPL II treatment and the surround channels
are always just loafing along, even when the mains are quite
loud. Pumping up the surround levels a lot will result in a
sonic mess.

Five excellent
speakers are more expensive than two-I don't see any way around it.

I have reviewed quite a few small satellites, in combination
with decent subwoofers, for The Sensible Sound. In
combination with those subs, many of those satellite pairs
were competitive with some of the best full-range stereo
packages I have worked with. Actually, if you cut away the
woofer section from a typical floor-standing, full-range
system you will end up with a tweeter/midrange section that
is not much larger and sound potent than a typical
independent satellite speaker. Add a sub to a pair of the
latter and you have a three-way system.

You will have to trust me on this (having done a lot of
level-matched AB comparing between assorted speaker
combinations), but it is not unusual at all for a pair of
modestly priced satellites and a sub to sound as good as
some upscale floor-standing units. My current floor standers
(in three different AV systems) are Allison IC-20s, Dunlavy
Cantatas, and NHT ST4 units. (I also use subwoofers,
Velodyne, Hsu, and SVS units, with all of them, even though
they do not really need them desperately by any means.) Many
of the small sub-satellite packages I have checked out could
give those systems, particularly the Cantatas and ST4s,
stiff competition, in terms of clarity, soundstaging, focus,
and depth. (None quite equal the Allisons, however.) Note
that I have also compared upscale and midscale Polk,
Waveform, Coincident Technology, Atlantic Technology,
Ascend, B&W, Triad, AR, and Axiom sub-sat and floor-standing
stereo packages to those references (to name a few), and
have gained some real respect for budget-level sub/sat
systems. Note that budget level does not mean Best Buy
cheap.

Add in the spectre of correct room design for best five channel
presentation vis-a-vis two, and we are talking a daunting prospect.

Nobody said it would be easy. However, balancing five
speakers in a surround package is not the rocket science
project some people appear to believe. But, yes, it
certainly is more difficult to set up five speakers properly
than just two. Again, I am assuming that our correspondent
does have a room that will work decently for the project.
Indeed, four small satellites and a subwoofer might actually
be easier to set up than two largish floor-standing systems.
In addition, a good sub/sat arrangement will possibly allow
for smoother bass response than two floor-standing systems
set up for optimum imaging.

Nevertheless, some will demand five channels, then seven....so my
advice would be to buy a system of modularity where you merely add on.

Not a bad idea at all. I would do that myself if I were in
his position, but I was assuming that the correspondent was
determined to limit himself to a maximum of $2000.

This would also seemingly argue in favor of the monoblock amplifier, if
one wants the amplifier separate from the speaker, unless you buy three
stereo amps and leave one channel unused.

A good AV receiver will deliver the goods in most rooms as
well as any set of monoblock amps. Trust me on this. I have
compared some mid-level receivers and integrated amps to
some pretty good monoblocks (and also compared some cheap
and expensive speaker wire) and they all sounded the same,
even at fairly high levels. Note that the best way to
compare this way is to do it blind, but even more important
is to get the per-channel levels (left and left and then
right and right from each amp) all precisely matched.

Howard Ferstler

TCS wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:51:37 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote:

"Andrew" said:

thank you Sander and TCS - they are the answers...however please make me
sure - does it mean that surround at that price always offer worse speakers
and so on...??

It's just the split budget.
$2000 buys you two good speakers or 5 mediocre ones.

I concur with TCS and Arny in this matter.

My respect for Arny notwithstanding, I do not agree. At the
upper end of this individual's price point, a 5.1 package
has the potential to sound more realistic than a stereo-only
package at the same price point.

No ****ing way. A $2000 setup is going to have $250 speakers which won't
sound anywhere near as good as $800 speakers.

Here is my hypothetical price structure.

Speakers: five, at $200 each: $1,000 (the Ascend Acoustics
CBM-170 satellites I reviewed in issue 93 of The Sensible
Sound listed for $180 each at that time. They had a plotted
response curve in my main room that was as flat as a pair of
$2,500 per pair Waveform MC satellites (reviewed by me in
issue 84), and flatter than the $3000 per pair Polk LSi25
systems I reviewed in issue 95. With its sub, the Waveform
package listed for five grand, but even that combo was no
flatter responding than the Ascend/Hsu package possible, and
only marginally better in terms of soundstaging, focus, and
imaging.

Receiver: $400 (any number of mainstream brands will fill
the bill.

DVD/CD player: $200 (any number of mainstream brands will
fill the bill.

Subwoofer: $300 (this will get you a Hsu SFT-1, which is a
close sonic match for their VTF-2, both of which I have
reviewed for The Sensible Sound in issues 88 and 101.
Believe it or not, the small Hsu sub should be able to hold
its own against even the two powered woofer sections in the
Polk LSi25 tower systems. Yep, a pair of Ascend satellites
and Hsu STF-1 sub (list price about $660) were a match, or
maybe even a bit superior to, the pair of Polks. And
remember, this is with two channels. A surround package
would add three more satellites.

Wi $100 (this includes 16 AWG lamp cord for the speakers
and good Radio shack cables for interconnect use.

Total: $2000

Working with DPL II decoding, this combination will be able
to deliver a degree of sonic realism with two-channel
sources that is unattainable by just about ANY two-channel
package, including some very expensive versions.

Note that NHT, Axiom, BG, Atlantic Technology, AR, SVS, and
a number of other outfits offer components that are
competitive with those mentioned above. They might cost a
tad more, however.

Note also that room curves I ran on a variety of speakers
(expensive and cheap) can be found in issues 94 and 95 of
The Sensible Sound. The full reviews on them and a number of
others are scattered over issues going back several years,
however.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:

Here is my hypothetical price structure.

Speakers: five, at $200 each: $1,000 (the Ascend Acoustics
CBM-170 satellites

(snip a bunch of blather and opinion)

I'd at least go for something that can handle real
bass. Mirage and Paradigm make better sounding speakers.
The CBM-170s unfortunately *require* a sub to sound
propetly full-range, and that's not optimal. The sub
should only be required for movies as reinforcement.

Receiver: $400 (any number of mainstream brands will fill
the bill.

No problem here. Denon is probably the best of the bunch
at the low end, though they have about the worst tuner
section for FM that I've ever run across and a nasty
remote. Still, for A/V processing, it's great.

DVD/CD player: $200 (any number of mainstream brands will
fill the bill.

$100 should do it. You don't need anything fancy.

Subwoofer: $300 (this will get you a Hsu SFT-1, which is a
close sonic match for their VTF-2,

(snip a bunch of who gives a damn about your reviews
nonsense)

$300 won't get you a decent subwoofer. $600 would, though.

Wi $100 (this includes 16 AWG lamp cord for the speakers
and good Radio shack cables for interconnect use.

$50. I'd not even include this in the overall cost - just
$2000 plus wire and tax, as a roll of 12 gauge wire(500ft)
isn't even $30. 16 gauge is too small as well - 14 or 12
gauge is better and is only a dollar or two more per roll.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

Klipsch was alive and quite sane, from all accounts, until quite
recently.

Say what?

http://www.engology.com/eng5klipsch.htm

"Paul Wilbur Klipsch, a great inventor, engineer, scientist, pilot,
and
legendary eccentric died May 5, 2002 at the age of 98. "

That was almost 3 years ago!


Boy did I commit a grievous error. I said PWK passed "quite recently"
when I should have said "relatively recently". As if three years from
the life of a 60 year old product by an engineer who lived to 98 wasn't
"quite recent".

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

Here is my hypothetical price structure.

Speakers: five, at $200 each: $1,000 (the Ascend Acoustics
CBM-170 satellites

(snip a bunch of blather and opinion)

I'd at least go for something that can handle real
bass.

Why? The package will include a subwoofer. Don't sell the
little Ascend speakers short above the low bass range. I
compared them to some pretty upscale units I had on hand to
review at the time, as well as to my Dunlavy Cantatas and
NHT ST4 units. They were not shamed by any means.

Mirage and Paradigm make better sounding speakers.

Perhaps they do. I was just indicating that it is possible
to get good sound for not all that much money. I assume you
have compared the Ascend units I discussed to those Mirage
and Paradigm models. Good comparing means separate amps for
each pair, so the average levels can be overlaid.

The CBM-170s unfortunately *require* a sub to sound
propetly full-range, and that's not optimal. The sub
should only be required for movies as reinforcement.

Baloney. Optimally positioning a sub (usually best
positioned in a corner up front) will allow for smooth bass
propagation, while the satellites can be located for
superior imaging and soundstaging. Usually, when full-range
systems (working without a subwoofer) are located for best
soundstaging and imaging the bass range is compromised. How
do I know this? I have done the response measurements many
times with a large variety of small and large speakers.

Receiver: $400 (any number of mainstream brands will fill
the bill.

No problem here. Denon is probably the best of the bunch
at the low end, though they have about the worst tuner
section for FM that I've ever run across and a nasty
remote. Still, for A/V processing, it's great.

I am not particularly interested in FM. I do not listen to
music for background sound and I have over 1,200 compact
discs and over 100 SACD, DVD-A, DD, and DTS music recordings
on hand as well. When it comes to amp/preamp performance,
any number of other models can probably match the Denon.

DVD/CD player: $200 (any number of mainstream brands will
fill the bill.

$100 should do it. You don't need anything fancy.

Agreed. However, going a bit upscale might gain the user
some DVD-A or SACD abilities. Also, there is progressive
scan and the like if future video use is contemplated.

Subwoofer: $300 (this will get you a Hsu SFT-1, which is a
close sonic match for their VTF-2,

(snip a bunch of who gives a damn about your reviews
nonsense)

$300 won't get you a decent subwoofer. $600 would, though.

I have compared the $300 Hsu SFT-1 to several subs in that
$600 price category and it clobbered them. I have also
compared it and the VTF-2 to the Velodyne FSR-12 servo model
in my living-room system and down to 25 Hz the VTF-2 was
subjectively equal to that $1300 Velodyne, and the SFT-1
held its own spectacularly well down to 30 Hz, or even a bit
lower. I did these tests with the subs sitting next to each
other in my main room and doing level-matched switchovers
with both super-duper bass recordings and test tones. Is
that how you do your comparing?

Incidentally, at modest levels the FSR-12 cannot be
differentiated from the Velodyne F1800RII in my main system
or the modified SVS 16-46 PC I use for the center channel in
that same system, or the Hsu TN1220 I use in my middle
system. This means that those smaller Hsu models are even
more sensational than I first indicated. You seem to like
Paradigm, and I have compared their excellent servo model to
the bigger Hsu and Velodyne units. Level matched, they all
performed subjectively about the same way. The biggest
difference between really good subs of different sizes
involve maximum output levels. Note that I said really good.
Some subs, including some $600 jobs, are not much more than
outboard woofers.

Wi $100 (this includes 16 AWG lamp cord for the speakers
and good Radio shack cables for interconnect use.

$50. I'd not even include this in the overall cost - just
$2000 plus wire and tax, as a roll of 12 gauge wire(500ft)
isn't even $30. 16 gauge is too small as well - 14 or 12
gauge is better and is only a dollar or two more per roll.

You are probably correct about his wire costs. However, you
did forgot the interconnects. Even cheap Radio Shack Golds
cost at least twelve bucks. If the guy does a digital hookup
with optical cable the price for the cable would be $20-$30
all by itself. Also, I take sales taxes seriously, and so
even with cheap wire he will be bumping that $2000 limit
pretty hard.

Regarding your comments about wire gauge, I once compared
24-foot runs of 16 AWG wire both to 12-foot runs of $1000
Dunlavy Ultra speaker cable, and also to 4-foot runs of
Monster style 12 AWG stuff. The sound was the same. Small
wire looks less obnoxious laying on the floor.

I'd like to know where you got a 500-foot roll of 12 AWG
wire for under $30. Do you live in China?

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:

I'd at least go for something that can handle real
bass.

Why? The package will include a subwoofer. Don't sell the
little Ascend speakers short above the low bass range. I
compared them to some pretty upscale units I had on hand to
review at the time, as well as to my Dunlavy Cantatas and
NHT ST4 units. They were not shamed by any means.

Because 100hz is directional. This is the same problem
you face with the smallest Magnepans - you need *two*
subwoofers to fill in the 50-100hz range, whiere stereo
imagine still exists, barring a 10*12 room.

Also, a subwoofer for stereo music tends to not integrate
well due to how the receiver handles processing and
crossover points(unless the receiver can keep presets for
each mode completely seperate).

Your front two speakers should at least be small towers
capable of good stereo music by themselves. The sub
should function either not at all in that mode, or
as below 50hz reinforcement only.

Mirage and Paradigm make better sounding speakers.

Perhaps they do. I was just indicating that it is possible
to get good sound for not all that much money. I assume you
have compared the Ascend units I discussed to those Mirage
and Paradigm models. Good comparing means separate amps for
each pair, so the average levels can be overlaid.

Mirage are quite affordable, especially given their low
actual street price. I used to recommend Tannoy's
Mercury series - budget speakers that don't sound
budget. The M4 and M5 towers were superb sounding,
easily outclassing most others in their price range.

Athena almost makes nice speakers. The older Mirage
FRX spakers are essientially the current Athena speakers,
other than the superb FRx-9, which was amazing, with a sub
in each tower.

I'd recommend the AS-F2 fronts(larger towers rated to
35hz), AS-F1 rears(small towers give better bass and
take up the same floorspace as a bookself and a stand).

I'd personally go and spend $600 on the better HSU sub.
The Athena sub, unfortunately, is weak at 100W RMS.
Best Buy has the F1 and centers for $477. The F2
towers are $399 a pair if you shop around.

www.slickdeals.net is a great place to locate coupons and
drop $50-$100 off of something like this. Almost every
large e-tailer like Best Buy has free in-store pickup
and coupons for $50-$100 off of larger amounts.

~800 for five speakers using methods like this.
(retail is $979)

The HSU VTF-3 is $699, but would be appropriate, IMO.
$1500 plus $399 for a receiver and $100 for a DVD player
would take you to $2000 for the entire system. Yes, the
Sub kind of outclasses the speakers, but IMO, the sub
is the one item that you shouldn't have to replace for
a long time as a $400 sub up to a $1000 sub is a steep hit
compared to $600 for better fronts.


No problem here. Denon is probably the best of the bunch
at the low end, though they have about the worst tuner
section for FM that I've ever run across and a nasty
remote. Still, for A/V processing, it's great.

I am not particularly interested in FM.

Thankfully, most people are not either. Denon rocks,
though, for inexpensive and functional A/V. Tons of
modes and features, plus it can run a lot more actual
power than most of the competition.

DVD/CD player: $200 (any number of mainstream brands will
fill the bill.


$100 should do it. You don't need anything fancy.

Agreed. However, going a bit upscale might gain the user
some DVD-A or SACD abilities. Also, there is progressive
scan and the like if future video use is contemplated.

True, but I've seen DVD-A and progressive scan models for
about $100 lately. It's amazing how much of a commodity
item they have become. I'd definately go cheap as possible
as once HDTV is set in stone, we'll all need new HD-DVD
players. That's when you drop $300-$400 for a player.

The same goes with a TV set. Make due. In a year, CRT
HDTV sets will drop to $500-$600 and are a no-brainer compared
to projection units. They are heavy as hell, but have
a better picture by far for about half the money. Currently,
$1200-$1400 is what the better models cost, and the budget
Sony 16:9 tube set with a tuner in it is about $800. A bit
much, but in a year, when the HDTV standard is mandated to
be part of all VHF channels(and therefore, most cable TV
as well), prices will drop like a rock.

I have compared the $300 Hsu SFT-1 to several subs in that
$600 price category and it clobbered them. I have also
compared it and the VTF-2 to the Velodyne FSR-12 servo model
in my living-room system and down to 25 Hz the VTF-2 was
subjectively equal to that $1300 Velodyne,

That's why I recommended the VTF-3. I really do like the HSU
subs, but the SFT-1 is inderpowered with the speakers I
recommended. I suppose the VTF-2 would work as well, but
the budget can afford it, and IMO, it pays to buy a good
sub and amplifier if you can, as they are the most expensive
components in most systems anyways.

For A $1000 5.1 setup, though, the $300 HSU sub would be
perfect.

$50. I'd not even include this in the overall cost - just
$2000 plus wire and tax, as a roll of 12 gauge wire(500ft)
isn't even $30. 16 gauge is too small as well - 14 or 12
gauge is better and is only a dollar or two more per roll.


You are probably correct about his wire costs. However, you
did forgot the interconnects. Even cheap Radio Shack Golds
cost at least twelve bucks.

I went to the local electronics store(read - real deal, with
tons of rows of little baggies with components in them) and
got lug connectors for $1 for 4. Add in a decent crimping
tool if you don't have access to one. Everyone should have
one, though, IMO, so it's a "tool" and not really part of the
cost.

Regarding your comments about wire gauge, I once compared
24-foot runs of 16 AWG wire both to 12-foot runs of $1000
Dunlavy Ultra speaker cable, and also to 4-foot runs of
Monster style 12 AWG stuff. The sound was the same. Small
wire looks less obnoxious laying on the floor.

Yep. My trick is to use 12 or 14 gauge electrical wire
and do the drill motor and twist routine(2-3 twists per
foot) - then wrap all of that in heat shrink tubing.

Small, thin, and as pro looking as you can get. It's
about as thin as common zip-cord, In fact. Just say no
to poofy insulation.

I'd like to know where you got a 500-foot roll of 12 AWG
wire for under $30. Do you live in China?

Heh. This would make 250ft of speaker wire, which is plenty
for most installs. The last time I was at Home Depot, it
was around $30 for a roll of electrical wire. Of course,
spray paint the ends of one wire so you can tell which is which.

Of course, a 250 ft roll of 1/4 inch(shrunk size)heat shrink
tubing isn't cheap. It is compared to the boutique wire,
though.

I have heard a lot of sub/satellite systems and some are quite good, I
think, but the mid-to-low bass never seems to be as realistic (the
lowest bass registers are fine) in terms of where the instruments
'appear' to be located. I guess in the Holt vocabulary this is part of
"soundstage". On a lot of material it doesn't matter, but on those
relatively few stereo discs where you had true stereo room recording
and instruments in physical space together, the sub/sat systems present
the material with as much or more detail but without the audible image
in that register.

On the other hand...those Klipschhorns had it. You could walk around
the room and feel you were walking to or from specific instruments even
though the "there" there was empty space. I am not saying this is
necessarily exclusive to horns, it certainly isn't, but it does seem
exclusive to speakers with big efficient bass radiation.

The kicker here is this was in a room bigger than most people have. In
an apartment or small house I would go sub/satellite without
hesitation. Bedrooms are a different story yet-you want music for
appreciation or for copulation?

wrote:

I have heard a lot of sub/satellite systems and some are quite good, I
think, but the mid-to-low bass never seems to be as realistic (the
lowest bass registers are fine) in terms of where the instruments
'appear' to be located. I guess in the Holt vocabulary this is part of
"soundstage". On a lot of material it doesn't matter, but on those
relatively few stereo discs where you had true stereo room recording
and instruments in physical space together, the sub/sat systems present
the material with as much or more detail but without the audible image
in that register.

Correct. This is because the room is large enough to where the
lower frequency sounds coming from the subwoofer are still directional.
The only way to get around this is to lower the sub's crossover point
and get speakers with 6-8 inch woofers in it that can at least go
down to 40-50hz. In a small room, 50-80hz is likely where the sound
stops being directional, so satellite systems manage to get by
a bit better.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:35:16 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:



wrote:

I have heard a lot of sub/satellite systems and some are quite good, I
think, but the mid-to-low bass never seems to be as realistic (the
lowest bass registers are fine) in terms of where the instruments
'appear' to be located. I guess in the Holt vocabulary this is part of
"soundstage". On a lot of material it doesn't matter, but on those
relatively few stereo discs where you had true stereo room recording
and instruments in physical space together, the sub/sat systems present
the material with as much or more detail but without the audible image
in that register.

Correct. This is because the room is large enough to where the
lower frequency sounds coming from the subwoofer are still directional.
The only way to get around this is to lower the sub's crossover point
and get speakers with 6-8 inch woofers in it that can at least go
down to 40-50hz. In a small room, 50-80hz is likely where the sound
stops being directional, so satellite systems manage to get by
a bit better.

Joseph, was it you who was talking about mounting Maggies on the wall?
If so, wouldn't this reduce the "airiness" of the speakers, since you
are virtually removing the dipole characteristics of the speaker? I
guess I understand the utility of doing that in an environment that
could be dangerous to the speaker, but if I had to sacrifice one of
the big design points of the speaker, I think I'd have to choose a
different design. Now, I would think that mounting small Maggies
perpendicular to the side walls as satellites would be cool, since
dipoles seem to work well as satellites. Of course, it would look a
little weird, plus you might have to tinker with the angle and not
have them 90 degrees from the wall.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

I'd at least go for something that can handle real
bass.

Why? The package will include a subwoofer. Don't sell the
little Ascend speakers short above the low bass range. I
compared them to some pretty upscale units I had on hand to
review at the time, as well as to my Dunlavy Cantatas and
NHT ST4 units. They were not shamed by any means.

Because 100hz is directional.

Not all that much, and if the sub is located somewhere
between the speakers no big deal at all. (Admittedly, I
prefer locating subs in room corners.) Actually, I cross
over all three of my systems at 90 Hz (with 24 dB low-pass
slopes) and directionality in the bass range is just not
there. How do I know? I disconnect the satellites, put on a
recording with decent bass, and see if I can locate the sub
by ear.

This leads to a funny story. I was doing that with the
center-channel sub in my main system (at that time a Hsu
TN1220), which is located in the left-front corner of my
main-system room. I could swear that I heard bass coming
from that area, but when I got up to see just how hard the
sub was working I discovered that it was not playing at all.
I had set a bass-routing adjustment wrong and the center
bass was coming from my main sub, a Velodyne F1800, 20 feet
away in the right-front corner. This was with a 90 Hz
crossover.

The Hsu sub now does main-channel duty in my middle system,
by the way, and in the main system it was replaced by an SVS
16-46 that I have extensively modified. (I did an article on
the mod in TSS a while back.) I had to move the Hsu into the
middle-system room, because the sub had to fit into a tight
space and the 16-46 that was in there was just too big
around.

This is the same problem
you face with the smallest Magnepans - you need *two*
subwoofers to fill in the 50-100hz range, whiere stereo
imagine still exists, barring a 10*12 room.

The Ascends had no trouble reaching down to the 90 Hz
crossover point I use. The room-curve blend I measured over
that range is quite smooth. The curve can be found in issue
95 of The Sensible Sound, by the way. They are coupled with
a Hsu VTF-3, incidentally, in that curve.

Also, a subwoofer for stereo music tends to not integrate
well due to how the receiver handles processing and
crossover points(unless the receiver can keep presets for
each mode completely seperate).

Your front two speakers should at least be small towers
capable of good stereo music by themselves. The sub
should function either not at all in that mode, or
as below 50hz reinforcement only.

My middle system uses Dunlavy Cantatas, but I do not run
them full range. The low bass is shunted to a Hsu TN1220
(now in that system, instead of the main system) and when I
listen to some baroque recordings the auto-on feature of the
amp I use does not even trigger. Yes, sometimes you do not
need really low bass at all, and even moderately sized
speakers will do just fine. With some other music, and
certainly with some home theater, however, all bets are off.

Mirage are quite affordable, especially given their low
actual street price. I used to recommend Tannoy's
Mercury series - budget speakers that don't sound
budget. The M4 and M5 towers were superb sounding,
easily outclassing most others in their price range.

I reviewed a pair of Tannoy Mercury M2 models in issue 70 of
The Sensible Sound (July/Aug, 1998). It was a good little
system, but not quite in the same class as the similarly
sized Ascend models. Not quite as good as the NHT SB3 models
I reviewed in issue 90, either.

Athena almost makes nice speakers. The older Mirage
FRX spakers are essientially the current Athena speakers,
other than the superb FRx-9, which was amazing, with a sub
in each tower.

I'd recommend the AS-F2 fronts(larger towers rated to
35hz), AS-F1 rears(small towers give better bass and
take up the same floorspace as a bookself and a stand).

Have you done level-matched AB comparisons between these
various systems? I always make sure to do that with any
systems I review for magazine reports. I certainly would not
solidly recommend any speakers that I had not treated that
way.

The HSU VTF-3 is $699, but would be appropriate, IMO.

I reviewed that unit in Volume 8, issue 4 of The Audiophile
Voice. Very nice subwoofer. Very powerful. Down to 25 Hz the
smaller VTF-2 can match it at reasonably output levels, and
the still smaller STF-1 can match it down to 30 Hz, although
we are not talking high outputs. Below are the "clean" max
outputs (with test tones) of each of four Hsu subs and
several others in my main room at the same locations:

31.5 Hz 20 Hz

TN1220 113 dB 106 dB
VTF-3 (20 Hz plug) 112 dB 100 dB
VTF-2 (25 Hz plug) 106 dB 90 dB
STF-1 103 dB 80 dB
Velodyne F1800 114 dB 110 dB
Velodyne HGS-15 110 dB 104 dB
Velodyne FSR-12 104 dB 97 dB
Paradigm Servo 15 112 dB 110 dB

There are also quite a few other models I have measured, but
these are ones that might interest you.

I have compared the $300 Hsu SFT-1 to several subs in that
$600 price category and it clobbered them. I have also
compared it and the VTF-2 to the Velodyne FSR-12 servo model
in my living-room system and down to 25 Hz the VTF-2 was
subjectively equal to that $1300 Velodyne,

That's why I recommended the VTF-3. I really do like the HSU
subs, but the SFT-1 is inderpowered with the speakers I
recommended.

See my above measurements. Even Hsu himself is impressed
with and shocked by the performance of the STF-1, and it is
his design!

I suppose the VTF-2 would work as well, but
the budget can afford it, and IMO, it pays to buy a good
sub and amplifier if you can, as they are the most expensive
components in most systems anyways.

In a head to head music face off, I doubt if anyone could
hear the difference between the VTF-2 and a Velodyne servo
FSR-12. I ought to know: I own both and have done the
comparisons. Also reviewed both (in issues 67 and 88 of
TSS).

For A $1000 5.1 setup, though, the $300 HSU sub would be
perfect.

And also perfect for a $2000 package.

Howard Ferstler

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

wrote:

I have heard a lot of sub/satellite systems and some are quite good, I
think, but the mid-to-low bass never seems to be as realistic (the
lowest bass registers are fine) in terms of where the instruments
'appear' to be located. I guess in the Holt vocabulary this is part of
"soundstage". On a lot of material it doesn't matter, but on those
relatively few stereo discs where you had true stereo room recording
and instruments in physical space together, the sub/sat systems present
the material with as much or more detail but without the audible image
in that register.

Correct. This is because the room is large enough to where the
lower frequency sounds coming from the subwoofer are still directional.

Room size should not have an impact on bass directional
clues. You could tell if the sub was quite close to the
listener, but that is only the case if it is either
generating harmonics that would be high enough in frequency
to provide localization clues or if artifacts (knick knacks,
lamps etc.) close to the sub were vibrating in sympathy.

The only way to get around this is to lower the sub's crossover point
and get speakers with 6-8 inch woofers in it that can at least go
down to 40-50hz. In a small room, 50-80hz is likely where the sound
stops being directional, so satellite systems manage to get by
a bit better.

See my comments in another post about how I mis-located a
subwoofer that was crossed over at 90 Hz. And this was with
the satellites turned off. With them in operation, the
Franssen Effect and of course the precedence effect, if the
sub is further from the listener than the satellites, will
make bass location even more difficult.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:35:16 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:



wrote:


I have heard a lot of sub/satellite systems and some are quite good, I
think, but the mid-to-low bass never seems to be as realistic (the
lowest bass registers are fine) in terms of where the instruments
'appear' to be located. I guess in the Holt vocabulary this is part of
"soundstage". On a lot of material it doesn't matter, but on those
relatively few stereo discs where you had true stereo room recording
and instruments in physical space together, the sub/sat systems present
the material with as much or more detail but without the audible image
in that register.

Correct. This is because the room is large enough to where the
lower frequency sounds coming from the subwoofer are still directional.
The only way to get around this is to lower the sub's crossover point
and get speakers with 6-8 inch woofers in it that can at least go
down to 40-50hz. In a small room, 50-80hz is likely where the sound
stops being directional, so satellite systems manage to get by
a bit better.

Joseph, was it you who was talking about mounting Maggies on the wall?
If so, wouldn't this reduce the "airiness" of the speakers, since you
are virtually removing the dipole characteristics of the speaker?

I recommended a piano hinge and moving them to be perpindicular
when in use. That way, you get the best possible sound(facing you
on edge) Dipoles take a bit of getting used to. I like to imagine
a tower speaker that's 2 inches wide.

different design. Now, I would think that mounting small Maggies
perpendicular to the side walls as satellites would be cool, since
dipoles seem to work well as satellites. Of course, it would look a
little weird, plus you might have to tinker with the angle and not
have them 90 degrees from the wall.

You'll get used to them quickly. They make them with off-white
fabric. I would mount them so that the edges are directly facing
your listening position(slightly off of 90 degrees from the wall)

I'd recommend the AS-F2 fronts(larger towers rated to
35hz), AS-F1 rears(small towers give better bass and
take up the same floorspace as a bookself and a stand).


Have you done level-matched AB comparisons between these
various systems? I always make sure to do that with any
systems I review for magazine reports. I certainly would not
solidly recommend any speakers that I had not treated that
way.

I've done it with the older Mirage FRx speakers at
a couple of stores. They discontinued the FRx, but
seem to have reintroduced them in the Athena(and taken
the modular Athenas off the market, sadly)

The HSU VTF-3 is $699, but would be appropriate, IMO.

I reviewed that unit in Volume 8, issue 4 of The Audiophile
Voice. Very nice subwoofer. Very powerful. Down to 25 Hz the
smaller VTF-2 can match it at reasonably output levels, and
the still smaller STF-1 can match it down to 30 Hz, although
we are not talking high outputs. Below are the "clean" max
outputs (with test tones) of each of four Hsu subs and
several others in my main room at the same locations:

Sure. The VTF-2 also would work. But a 100W sub isn't
enough(STF-1 or simmilar). I'd go up a level.

31.5 Hz 20 Hz

TN1220 113 dB 106 dB
VTF-3 (20 Hz plug) 112 dB 100 dB
VTF-2 (25 Hz plug) 106 dB 90 dB
STF-1 103 dB 80 dB
Velodyne F1800 114 dB 110 dB
Velodyne HGS-15 110 dB 104 dB
Velodyne FSR-12 104 dB 97 dB
Paradigm Servo 15 112 dB 110 dB

Nice chart - thanks

20hz @ 80db just isn't going to compete with the
five other speakers, IMO. I'd want 100db or better
in order to handle movie effects with somewhat
decent SPL. But, I guess I'm really into impact
in movies.

There are also quite a few other models I have measured, but
these are ones that might interest you.

I still like the VTF-3 for the price. It gets the job
done and is a lot less expensive(and not a sluggish 15 incher)
than the Velodynes.


That's why I recommended the VTF-3. I really do like the HSU
subs, but the SFT-1 is inderpowered with the speakers I
recommended.

See my above measurements. Even Hsu himself is impressed
with and shocked by the performance of the STF-1, and it is
his design!

I suppose the VTF-2 would work as well, but
the budget can afford it, and IMO, it pays to buy a good
sub and amplifier if you can, as they are the most expensive
components in most systems anyways.

In a head to head music face off, I doubt if anyone could
hear the difference between the VTF-2 and a Velodyne servo
FSR-12.

See my comments on Velodyne $1000+ for a sub is
silly.

Howard Ferstler wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

wrote:

I have heard a lot of sub/satellite systems and some are quite good, I
think, but the mid-to-low bass never seems to be as realistic (the
lowest bass registers are fine) in terms of where the instruments
'appear' to be located. I guess in the Holt vocabulary this is part of
"soundstage". On a lot of material it doesn't matter, but on those
relatively few stereo discs where you had true stereo room recording
and instruments in physical space together, the sub/sat systems present
the material with as much or more detail but without the audible image
in that register.

Correct. This is because the room is large enough to where the
lower frequency sounds coming from the subwoofer are still directional.


Room size should not have an impact on bass directional
clues. You could tell if the sub was quite close to the
listener, but that is only the case if it is either
generating harmonics that would be high enough in frequency
to provide localization clues or if artifacts (knick knacks,
lamps etc.) close to the sub were vibrating in sympathy.

IIRC, the O.P. said he had a huge room, so beyond 30 ft
long, or so, 50-60hz or so is still directional. The systems also
probably had the crossover improperly adjusted(and/or bad
positioning), and were getting the overamped "boomy" effect.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Subject: stereo or surround for music?
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:13 AM

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net

This is because the room is large enough to where the
lower frequency sounds coming from the subwoofer are still
directional.

That's the basic problem. It takes two forms - one is that the sound is
audibly coming from the wrong direction. The other problem is that the sound
has within itself incorrect spatiality.

The only way to get around this is to lower the sub's
crossover point and get speakers with 6-8 inch woofers in it that can
at least go down to 40-50hz.

This is probably conservative. Depending on the situation, appropriate
crossover action can be obtained as high as 85 Hz or so.

However, speakers with 6-8 inch drivers may be stressed if they are driven
hard below even 85 Hz.

In a small room, 50-80hz is likely where the sound stops being
directional,

Small rooms are arguably easier than large rooms, because in large rooms
there are more opportunities for things to go wrong.

so satellite systems manage to get by a bit better.

In a small room the subs and sats are more likely to be closer to each
other.