Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

$2000 to spend on speaker system... Help!


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 of 33 OFFLINE   Ben Mecham

Ben Mecham

    Agent



  • 25 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 20 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 03:10 AM

I need recommendations on which speakers (including sub) to buy for an HT setup. Limit is $2000: Room is 23 X 14 X 9, closed off Just ordered Denon 3805 7.1 Some music, mainly movies Concrete floor (problem with subs?) Obviously I would like to have the most bang for the buck. It's probably going to get pretty loud, but I'm sure the large room size might pose a problem. No preferences... What do you guys think? Thanks, Ben

#2 of 33 OFFLINE   DavidCooper

DavidCooper

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 230 posts
  • Join Date: May 21 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 03:16 AM

Take a look at the Swan's. The new Black Cherry faux finish is an EXCELLENT value. Not to mention a fantastic sounding speaker. For your money I would take a look at doing the Swan 2.1's for your mains/sides/rears and the C3 center channel. As far as subs go I would look into SVS. I think you could get everything for right around $2,000.00 plus shipping so that might be a stretch on your budget..but it's still worth a look.

#3 of 33 OFFLINE   Rob Kramer

Rob Kramer

    Second Unit



  • 435 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 04:10 AM

$300(2.1)+$300(2.1)+$350(c3)+$600(hsa/svs/outlaw/etc sub) = $1550 (plus shipping) Add in two sets of steel speaker stands ($250),100' of 12ga cable ($40), and bananas ($30) and you are still under $2K Sounds good to me!

#4 of 33 OFFLINE   DavidCooper

DavidCooper

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 230 posts
  • Join Date: May 21 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 04:17 AM

That would be a VERY nice system..and money well spent in my opinon. You could shop around for the stands and save some cash there if your mounting the rears on the wall.

#5 of 33 OFFLINE   Ben Mecham

Ben Mecham

    Agent



  • 25 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 20 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 04:20 AM

Thanks for your replies, I'm not really familiar with Swan. Only what I have heard here... I checked their website and I saw that they do have surround speakers, yet you recommend using 2.1's for the rear. Is there an advantage to this, besides cost? Also, this is a 7.1 setup, so I will need 4 surrounds. This setup seems to compare price-wise with a similar Klipsch Reference setup. Will I get more with Swan than with Klipsch? Thanks for your help Ben

#6 of 33 OFFLINE   DavidCooper

DavidCooper

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 230 posts
  • Join Date: May 21 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 05:20 AM

Well, using monopoles vs. dipoles is an ongoing debate. I just figured with your budget you should do the all monopole thing (all 2.1's). IMO the difference in sound between mono and dipoles isn't a HUGE deal. It does sound "different" but either one sounds great. As far as Klipsch goes I haven't heard too many of their speakers lately. I remember the ones that I did hear a while back were bit too bright and harsh in the highs...but that is very subjective. Some people like the bright or forward sound. The Swan's are for sure detailed but they aren't bright or harsh IMO. Right now I'm running the 2.1's as my mains along with the C3..I still have my paradigm atoms on the sides and rear for 7.1. I will be replacing them with all 2.1's in the near future though.

#7 of 33 OFFLINE   Rob Kramer

Rob Kramer

    Second Unit



  • 435 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 06:27 AM

I dont think Klipsch qualifies as "most bang for the buck".

#8 of 33 OFFLINE   Steve_Cohen

Steve_Cohen

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 52 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 29 2002

Posted July 21 2004 - 08:03 AM

I know nothing about high end speakers, but I have been looking at these and trying to find the dough. They seem to offer pretty good bang for the buck.

http://www.axiomaudio.com/epic50.html

#9 of 33 OFFLINE   Oren Paul

Oren Paul

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 66 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 02 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 08:06 AM

Klipsch has a very high SPL at low power, 95+db @ 1 watt. Some mistake this for brightness.

#10 of 33 OFFLINE   ChadLB

ChadLB

    Screenwriter



  • 1,523 posts
  • Join Date: May 05 2002

Posted July 21 2004 - 08:52 AM

If you like the Axiom get the VP150, 50s or 60s and the QS8s. Then get either a SVS or HSU sub and be done with it.....

#11 of 33 OFFLINE   CurtisSC

CurtisSC

    Screenwriter



  • 1,412 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2003

Posted July 21 2004 - 11:30 AM

www.ascendacoustics.com
www.ascendforum.com
curtis
Manhattan Beach, California

#12 of 33 OFFLINE   John Garcia

John Garcia

    Executive Producer



  • 11,566 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 1999
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationNorCal

Posted July 21 2004 - 11:52 AM

Not that the recommendations are bad, but what you really need to do is go out and listen to some speakers and figure out what characteristics YOU like. THEN start looking for deals or similar products.

You can see if there is anyone in your area to audition Swans and Rockets (www.av123.com) at www.audioenvy.com
HT: Emotiva UMC-200, Emotiva XPA-3, Carnegie Acoustics CSB-1s + CSC-1, GR Research A/V-1s, Epik Empire, Oppo BDP-105, PS4, PS3,URC R-50, APC-H10, Panamax 5100 Bluejeans Cable
System Two: Marantz PM7200, Pioneer FS52s, Panasonic BD79
(stolen) : Marantz SR-8300, GR Research A/V-2s, Sony SCD-222ES SACD, Panasonic BD-65, PS3 60G (250G)

Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it’ll spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” – Albert Einstein

 


#13 of 33 OFFLINE   EricRWem

EricRWem

    Screenwriter



  • 1,097 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 04 2004
  • Real Name:Adrik

Posted July 21 2004 - 11:56 AM

www.htd.com level 4 series.

#14 of 33 OFFLINE   jephdood

jephdood

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 113 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 05 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 01:22 PM

I would also highly recommend Swans.. but if I had $2k to play with I'd go for their 5.2BC HT system, exchanging the R3s for 2.1s and removing the Sub10 from the package in favor of either an SVS or a HSU.

So, as an example..

5.2BC HT system (complete) - 1819.00
(add) pair 2.1's - 2118.00
(subtract) pair R3's - 1689.00
(subtract) sub10 - 1290.00 (approx, since the starting cost is based on buying their complete system)
(add) stands for the 2.1's - ~100.00
=========
~1390.00


Then add yer sub..

SVS 20-39PCi - 599.00
=========
1989.00 TOTAL

Badda boom.. badda bing. Posted Image

#15 of 33 OFFLINE   Rob Kramer

Rob Kramer

    Second Unit



  • 435 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 01:56 PM

The problem with the 5.2s is that they are more than twice the cost of the 2.1s, only go 10hz lower, and are huge (48" tall). In either case, you can try out the (less expensive) 2.1s (30 day free trial), compare them against other "local" speakers, and if you like them, im sure that John (audio insider) can put together a package for you (taking into account that you already have the 2.1s) - and maybe save you a few more bucks.

#16 of 33 OFFLINE   jephdood

jephdood

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 113 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 05 2004

Posted July 21 2004 - 02:05 PM

It's not just the 10Hz difference (though that is not insignificant by itself).. it's also that the 5.2's have the exact same driver configuration that the C3 has. In other words, it matches perfectly. Something that you generally want across the front stage of an HT setup. The same main drivers, the same soft dome mid, and of course the same dome tweet. The 2.1's don't have that extra mid and with the main driver cone area doubled in the 5.2's, they can just do more than the 2.1's. As for the size of the speakers, I just don't get that argument. With stands, you're GOING to have the same footprint. The only difference is that with stands you can control the height. But I think the 5.2s are a good height. Don't get me wrong.. I love the 2.1's (I own a pair along with the C3 and their Sub10). But if I were going for a complete 5.1 setup, I'd include the 5.2's in there. There IS a cost difference between the two, you're right there. But I was just forming a system around the 2k he quoted.
Yes, definitely give Jon Lane a call at TAI. Give him your budget, your room dimensions, and what you're looking for. He'll tell you what you should get based on all that criteria. Great guy that Jon is. Posted Image

#17 of 33 OFFLINE   DavidCooper

DavidCooper

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 230 posts
  • Join Date: May 21 2004

Posted July 22 2004 - 01:08 AM

Good point on the 5.2's. I have been back and forth with that decision too. On one hand it would be pretty cool to have all 2.1's and the C3 in a 7.1 system. Basically the exact same speaker all the way around with the C3 being the only exception. However, I totally see the reasoning behind going with the 5.2/C3 front sound stage. They are essentially the exact same speaker....you then could go with the 2.1's for side and rear surround. You would still have the exact same tweeter/driver combo in all speakers. The 5.2 and the C3 would have the extra mid-range. I just wonder though.....if your crossing over at 80 would the 5.2's really make that much of a difference over the 2.1's for HT use? They are almost 3 times the cost when you add in shipping...would there be 3 times the improvement?

#18 of 33 OFFLINE   Rob Kramer

Rob Kramer

    Second Unit



  • 435 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2004

Posted July 22 2004 - 01:41 AM

Good points on the 5.2 How about this. Get one pair of 2.1s and a one C3, listen to them, then decide if you want to go bigger in the front, or stick with the the 2.1s all around. Then contact John for the remaining speakers (or for further advice). Im sure he will take care of you.

#19 of 33 OFFLINE   DavidCooper

DavidCooper

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 230 posts
  • Join Date: May 21 2004

Posted July 22 2004 - 01:52 AM

Yeah...I currently have the 2.1/C3 combo and I think it sounds amazing......I just can't imagine the 5.2's sounding all that much different using my amps crossover. Tough call....they are MUCH bigger and harder to ship and ship back to try out.

#20 of 33 OFFLINE   jephdood

jephdood

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 113 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 05 2004

Posted July 22 2004 - 05:34 AM

I got the 2.1's because I have a cat and I didn't want him to scratch up a pair of 5.2's. Otherwise I would have gotten them. But yeah, you don't have to get the whole package shipped at once. As suggested, get the 2.1's and the C3, pair it with whatever sub you decide to go with, and see if it's enough sound for you and that the sound across the front is seamless. I mainly use my 2.1/C3/Sub10 setup for music and TV right now.. not movies. So I can't provide a very good report on real-world matching on the front stage. BUT.. I did manage to find an old e-mail exchange between Jon and I where I asked that very question: "...maybe I could get away with 4 2.1's on stands (I have cats with sharp claws, which is one of the reasons why I've been debating so long) and have the subs do the low-down dirty work that the 2.1's miss or the frequencies they start to strain on." And his reply: "I'd favor the 5.2's for full-on home theater. The match to the C3 is perfect and the power is uncompromised. The 2.1's are a much smaller speaker and won't match the center as well. It's not that we recommend against 2.1/C3 systems, it's just that your particular situation strikes me as higher-horsepower than that, unless I miss my guess." Then again, maybe that was just based on my conversation with him and my needs/specs. Again, Jon WILL steer you in the right direction.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users