Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Having recently installed a new plasma TV, I am thinking seriously of
moving towards a surround sound setup. My cuurent speakers consist of 2 Rogers LS3/5A's plus an Audiopro subwoofer. I would use these both for video and audio. In terms of adding a pair of rear speakers and a center channel, I was thinking of sticking with the LS3/5A's and picking up three more off of Ebay. Any reaction to this approach? Or might I be better off flipping the Rogers to the rear and doing something different for the front? |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The general recommendation is to use all identical speakers for SACD
multichannels though I wonder why you need full range for the rear or center. Anyhow, depending on your budget. Top priority is front channel followed by the Center. Get a good subwoofer with volume and crossover at cut off point of 120hz. I have just gone in into Multi/surround. and I don't use identical speakers. I am using my old front speakers for rear and my best for front(full range) and dedicted center speaker. IMHO, unless you own a system costing tens of thousand, it doesn't really matter whether you are using identical speaker or not. Of course, adjustmnet for various impedence and efficiency of speakers can be tricky and maybe that's the reason all identical speakers are recommended. (Lawrence Haber) wrote in message . net... Having recently installed a new plasma TV, I am thinking seriously of moving towards a surround sound setup. My cuurent speakers consist of 2 Rogers LS3/5A's plus an Audiopro subwoofer. I would use these both for video and audio. In terms of adding a pair of rear speakers and a center channel, I was thinking of sticking with the LS3/5A's and picking up three more off of Ebay. Any reaction to this approach? Or might I be better off flipping the Rogers to the rear and doing something different for the front? |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message ...
On 9 Jul 2003 14:31:02 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote: The general recommendation is to use all identical speakers for SACD multichannels though I wonder why you need full range for the rear or center. That depends on whether you have any bass management control for SACD. If not, there are many discs which have significant bass in center and rear channels. (The Linn SACD of the Poulenc Organ Concerto has the organ in the rear channels.) Yes, I agree with you. unlike Dolby prologic surround the SACD rear output carries more than ambience retrieval. Track 4 of Dark Side of the Moon will vouch for that. Anyhow, depending on your budget. Top priority is front channel followed by the Center. Get a good subwoofer with volume and crossover at cut off point of 120hz. Too high. You want the cutoff between main and sub to be 80Hz or less. The lower the better. I think 120Hz should be reasonable. Sony SACD players' cut off point is 120hz and redirect all signals below that to the sub in the event your other speakers are too small to output low frequencies. Me, despite having a full range front speakers (38hz) still using sub with the crossover cut off point set to 55 to 65hz. The volume is at 10. I think for a true high wnd system the lower the sub cut off the better it is but on budget level I would bet for the higher would probably be better. At least the other speakers and amp can concentrate on the mid and high. I have just gone in into Multi/surround. and I don't use identical speakers. I am using my old front speakers for rear and my best for front(full range) and dedicted center speaker. That can work just fine. And a sub... |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
... On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:07:47 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote: I think for a true high wnd system the lower the sub cut off the better it is but on budget level I would bet for the higher would probably be better. At least the other speakers and amp can concentrate on the mid and high. It should be as low as possible but that is determined by the capabilities of the speakers. I agree with you Kal. The sub crossover should be as low as possible. Logically it would seem to me, to avoid phasing problems the crossover should be set at the lower LF limit of the main speakers. Nousaine's 120Hz crossover seems to be on the high side. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
TChelvam wrote:
The general recommendation is to use all identical speakers for SACD multichannels though I wonder why you need full range for the rear or center. Because some artists/mixing engineers like to put full-range material in those channels too. Anyhow, depending on your budget. Top priority is front channel followed by the Center. Get a good subwoofer with volume and crossover at cut off point of 120hz. Better yet, a variable crossover. Variable phase adjustment is nice to have too. -- -S. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
TChelvam wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message ... On 9 Jul 2003 14:31:02 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote: The general recommendation is to use all identical speakers for SACD multichannels though I wonder why you need full range for the rear or center. That depends on whether you have any bass management control for SACD. If not, there are many discs which have significant bass in center and rear channels. (The Linn SACD of the Poulenc Organ Concerto has the organ in the rear channels.) Yes, I agree with you. unlike Dolby prologic surround the SACD rear output carries more than ambience retrieval. Track 4 of Dark Side of the Moon will vouch for that. Dolby Pro Logic II carries more than ambience material. It synthesizes a stereo surround, and depending ont he source, these can definitely be more than just 'ambience'. (I've just been reading on a Quad forum today about how QS or RM encoded quadrophonic recordings decode pretty well with DPL II, if the DPL Ii parameters are set right.) Anyhow, depending on your budget. Top priority is front channel followed by the Center. Get a good subwoofer with volume and crossover at cut off point of 120hz. Too high. You want the cutoff between main and sub to be 80Hz or less. The lower the better. I think 120Hz should be reasonable. Sony SACD players' cut off point is 120hz and redirect all signals below that to the sub in the event your other speakers are too small to output low frequencies. Keep in mind, tough that it's not a brickwall filter. At any setpoint, you're still getting some mains output at frequencies near but below the setpoint. Depending on how steep the slope is, it could be a lot. If the slope is shallow, and the mains woofers really small, then a high cutoff as you suggest might be indicated. Than again, if you set your crossover point that high, and the slope is steep, it could result in a 'hole' in the listening spectrum, since subwoofers aren't going to be be very good at outputing stuff in the 100 kHz range. My understanding is that ~5-6 inch woofers should be crossed over circa 80 Hz. My own 'small' speakers -- NHT SuperOnes -- are rated flat to at least 80 Hz. I run the subwoofer 'wide open' (125 Hz) so that I'm not doubling up on the crossovers. Btw I don't remember where that recommended figure came from -- is there any official (ITU?) recommendation relating crossover point and slope to woofer size to? -- -S. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
news:mehPa.23351$GL4.5818@rwcrnsc53... "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:07:47 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote: I think for a true high wnd system the lower the sub cut off the better it is but on budget level I would bet for the higher would probably be better. At least the other speakers and amp can concentrate on the mid and high. It should be as low as possible but that is determined by the capabilities of the speakers. I agree with you Kal. The sub crossover should be as low as possible. Logically it would seem to me, to avoid phasing problems the crossover should be set at the lower LF limit of the main speakers. Nousaine's 120Hz crossover seems to be on the high side. Let's distinquish here between a LFE sub and a sub used to extend the bottom end of a center channel speaker. if the latter, and if the sub can be position near the center (eg) under or next to the tv, and roughly in line with the center speaker, then a little directional sound emanating from the sub would not be all that detrimental, and the higher crossover *might* mate better with some center channels than otherwise would be the case. I agree that it is not ideal, but I can see where with cheaper speakers it might be practical. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Better yet, a variable crossover. Variable phase adjustment is nice to have too. Yes.that's really important. At 180 ( my sys), the sound clearer and the bass is tight with good punch. Unfortunately, not many can tell the diff. In fact, speaking of the phase, i remember that for the DAC, I could only tell on certain music which phase is better but in majority of them I am unable to tell correctly. Wonder how important is phase is? |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 11 Jul 2003 14:27:12 GMT, (TChelvam) wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... Better yet, a variable crossover. Variable phase adjustment is nice to have too. Yes.that's really important. At 180 ( my sys), the sound clearer and the bass is tight with good punch. Unfortunately, not many can tell the diff. In fact, speaking of the phase, i remember that for the DAC, I could only tell on certain music which phase is better but in majority of them I am unable to tell correctly. Wonder how important is phase is? I think what SS meant was fully variable phase, not just an inverting switch. I agree. It really helps. Kal I've set and installed dozens of subwoofer systems and have yet to find a continuously variable phase control to work any differently than a switch. IOW rotating the control will exhibit no difference until you hit a certain point and then the polarity suddenly changes and there will be no further change through the remainder of the rotation. Do we have some other experience to share? |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:23:26 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: I've set and installed dozens of subwoofer systems and have yet to find a continuously variable phase control to work any differently than a switch. IOW rotating the control will exhibit no difference until you hit a certain point and then the polarity suddenly changes and there will be no further change through the remainder of the rotation. Do we have some other experience to share? Not explicitly. Using the control on the Paradigm X30, the between-speaker tones on the Chesky test disc seem to snap in at about 100deg but I do not recall if there's much change after. When my system returns to normal (new speaker system under audition), I'll give it a more careful try. Kal I've used the X30 for years in testing autosound systems and sometimes passive subwoofers and the action always seems to be as you describe: there's a knee in the rotation that has the same effect as a switch. IOW you get the same results if you just turn the control fully one way or the other. I'n looking forward to more data on this. Thanks. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 4/5) | Car Audio | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
AER Pisces PB-651 V2.0 speaker review | Audio Opinions | |||
P/review of Jupiter Audio Europa speakers pt.1 | Audio Opinions | |||
Remote speakers? L-pads? Totally confused! | General |