OK Guys...2 scenarios...choose 1

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Bob_A, Oct 31, 2001.

  1. Bob_A

    Bob_A Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's say someone named Bob has a budget B = ($x + $x + $y + $y).
    $y is the cost of one quality external sub.
    Here are the two proposed scenarios:
    1) ($x + $x) on 2 main speakers
    ($y + $y) on 2 external subs
    OR
    2) ($x + $x + $y) on 2 main speakers
    ($y) on 1 external sub
    Now...keep in mind that scenario 2 will have y extra dollars spent on the main speakers...this will give you a set of mains which will cost somewhere between $500-$3000 MORE than the mains in scenario 1.
    Ok...if you were to recommend a system for the long run which would be used with music and movies...what would you recommend?
    I would almost certainly put the extra $500-$3000 in a "better" set of mains...the extra money spent on the mains most often means more money spent on drivers, crossover, cabinet materials, and other design elements.
    This begs the question: "compromise" on the quality of your main speakers to get more headroom down low?
    Definitely NO in my opinion...because I value the OVERALL music/HT experience...not simply bass down low.
    [Edited last by Bob_A on October 31, 2001 at 04:25 PM]
     
  2. Steve_Ma

    Steve_Ma Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let it rest. Why can't you guys accept a difference of opinion and let it go at that?
    Either that or get a tape measure and settle this once and for all. The post that started all this has got more than enough to digest without another platform for you and Tom the kick the stuffing out of each other yet again. Don't get me wrong, I love learning from a good debate, but hasn't this gone on ad-nausem at this point?
    besides, my alegbra is alittle rusty and I'm breaking into sweats just looking at the post.
    --S
    [Edited last by Steve_Ma on October 31, 2001 at 06:37 PM]
     
  3. Bob_A

    Bob_A Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Steve, I am looking for some opinions here...I stated my opinion, now I am waiting for others to state their opinion... [​IMG]
    If you do not want to deal with the simple addition, then answer:
    *****"compromise" on the quality of your main speakers to get more headroom down low?*****
    [Edited last by Bob_A on October 31, 2001 at 04:46 PM]
     
  4. Ted Robinson

    Ted Robinson Extra

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2000
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I could remember what all the x's and y's are for I would be an engineer by now.
    ------------------
    Ted Robinson
     
  5. Bob_A

    Bob_A Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    C'mon guys...this is simple addition!!! I am using "x" and "y" because we do not have any specific speakers and subs to compare.
    Why you guys consider this to be seemingly some kind of "joke" is beyond me...it is a relevant issue IMHO.
     
  6. Shane Martin

    Shane Martin Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 1999
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bob,
    Although I can see the others point in why can't you drop it(ie the multiple threads on this subject) I will tell you that I much prefer the method that allows me to use better mains. Being that I have the benefit of a flexible crossover(not fixed like most folks), I can get the mains' crossover set at a more optimal frequency than most folks.
    For instance, If I buy a set of Paradigm Studio 100's which are rated down into at 39. So going on this I would set up my crossover at 1 octave higher or in my case 60. So all bass would be sent to the sub at 60.
    Since I have this I can put less stress on my subwoofer to play the frequency range of 60+ while also getting better sound from my mains since they wouldn't be set to 80 small like most.
    Give me better mains and a lesser woofage and I'll take that over lesser mains and better woofage. Now if I was just a HT type of guy this might make a little more difference but to be honest soundtracks are getting so demanding now that I wouldn't do w/o towers(non powered) for mains.
    Please note I've tried to set my mains which are good down to the upper 20's to large and the sound isn't even close to what it is now with the mains set to small and the crossover set to 40.
    Hope you understand my point as I'm peculiar since I have flexible bass management. I wouldn't live w/o it.
    Also keep in mind that my reciever has individual settings per channel in 10hz increments for the crossover as compared to the Outlaw and Denon way of 1 point for all channels albeit "flexible".
     
  7. jeff lam

    jeff lam Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,798
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Real Name:
    Jeff Lam
    What's the total budget? My best bets would be Paradigm Monitor 7's and Dual SVS 20-39cs w/s700 amp for subs. Both offer the best quality at the best price. A great compromise!!! If you have the extra dough and don't really care, look into the paradigm studio line as well.
     
  8. Bhagi Katbamna

    Bhagi Katbamna Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2000
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll give it a go.
    It depends on room size and overall budget. If the sub that you can get for $y can produce ref. level at low frequencies(let us say 20 Hz) in your particular room, then there is no need to spend more money on a subwoofer. The subs that can do that in a typical 3000-5000 cu. ft. room are very, very,(very) rare.
    My personal disposition is that I would rather buy things only once so I would wait until I could spend 2 X $x and 2 x $y on mains(and ceneter and surr) and 2 x $z on subs that I really liked rather than compromising and having to upgrade later. If that happens to include tower mains or high quality, dynamic bookshelfs(such as PMC or M&K among others) so be it. I probably would not spend the extra money to buy powered towers if I had in mind a capable subwoofer and non-powered mains that I liked.
    Is that what you are getting at Bob_A?
     
  9. Bob_A

    Bob_A Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bhaghi what I am getting at is...when buying a setup used for music and home theater, would you put an extra $500-3000 into your main speakers or would you put this extra money into a second subwoofer? It does not matter what kind of speakers...bookshelf, tower, etc.
     
  10. Dustin B

    Dustin B Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2001
    Messages:
    3,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  11. Kevin C Brown

    Kevin C Brown Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2000
    Messages:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bob- I'd go for the better mains.
    I use my "home theater" 90% for 2 channel stereo listening. An extra sub isn't going to help you much there. (And I do cross over my mains to my sub even for 2 channel listening. Just that the music that I listen to, "std" rock, doesn't have a lot of content below 40 Hz.)
    Also, in my opinion [​IMG] if you get the "right" single sub, you only need one of them anyway. Of course depending on room size, etc. But again, this would be more for movies than music.
    I sort of think of it like 1 sub gets you to the 90% performance level, but the 2nd would only get you 10% more, but then you'd be at 100%. How I think about it anyway.
    ------------------
     
  12. Trey Jones

    Trey Jones Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would put my money in the mains, however, I am with Jeff above.
    I still don't get what you want. If you want us to argue over someone's mild difference of opinion that is futile. Also in this type of decision, there is no "be all end all" answer. Leave it at that.
     
  13. Geno

    Geno Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok Bob here goes...
    In my opinion, the obvious choice is the mains. Y? Efficient use of your $$. Think about the percentage of Hz that a sub puts out compared to the mains.
    If you spent the same amount on subs as you do on your mains the $$ is mostly, spent on low HZ. Accurate reproduction of sound is not based on bass. You dont walk around all day always feeling the ground move beneath you all the time, or do you.....
    But its all up to the one with the $$ and the ones who will be watching movies in the HT.
    a few questions...
    Will the subs have separate channels coming from the processor? or just have 2 on one channel?
    You havent mentioned surrounds yet either so either you have good enough surrounds or you consider them a part of mains, [in which the above theory becomes more reasonable] or you wont get surrounds [which with the money you are talking about, seems silly]. Which is it?
    Also, are you willing to spend more money? or would you like to save money?
    Basically I think too much bass would be like going to a drive-in and plugging the wires into a competition lowrider.
    But its all up to the one wh o spends the $$ and the ones who will be watching movies in the HT.
     
  14. Steve_Ma

    Steve_Ma Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 7, 2001
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bob,
    You said:
    "Steve, I am looking for some opinions here...I stated my opinion, now I am waiting for others to state their opinion..."
    Quite frankly, I'm not inclined to give my opinion in this matter. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that if it differs from yours, I might end up getting sucked into a flame war that is cleverly disguised as a debate.
    I'm the world's foremost authority on me. I'd buy right into that, and end up frustrated since don't have the same knowledge base that you and some others appear to have.
    I just want to learn from you guys. I don't want to have to decipher what is a point of debate and what is a opportunity to continue an argument.
    (sniff sniff...group hug anyone? Some cheeze with my whine?)
    Then again, it is an internet BB, not the dinner table.....Let me think about it and try to re-read the last few pages of the other thread. I'll get back to you.
    --Steve
    [Edited last by Steve_Ma on October 31, 2001 at 07:23 PM]
     
  15. Jeremy Hegna

    Jeremy Hegna Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've followed your threads for a while now and I see both sides of the argument.
    Call me old-school, but I still like to have big F#[email protected]!ing mains for my 2 channel music listening. I've read all of the arguments on setting large vs. small, etc. and I still set my mains to large. I'm powering them with a Denon 5800 and until my upgrade allows me to set a different X/O point on the small setting, I will continue to set them to large (I think it sounds better that way [​IMG])
    Regardless, most involved with the documentation and research on this subject know a hell of a lot more than I do about the subject...but it's all in the ear of the beholder. If it a speaker/setting/sub sounds better to you, that's the one you should run with.
    BTW, my mains are Nautilus 802s...my sub is a 20-39PC. They sound very good together with the mains set to large.
    Jeremy
     
  16. Vietor

    Vietor Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2001
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Alright, I'll bite,
    Now keep in mind I have a very modest ($1300) setup, but I think my words are valid.
    I think it is ENTIRELY based on your budget.
    It is not a simple question with a simple answer.
    If it comes down to 2 speakers which are pretty good for >80Hz, and a nice sub, as opposed to 2 speakers that are equaly good >80Hz and have OK
     
  17. JohanK

    JohanK Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2000
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Personally, I would take the extra 'y' and put it toward the video display.
    Under the constraints given, my personal preference would be answer 2) since I value main speaker aesthetics rather highly. But my answer could change tomorrow...
    ------------------
    http://www.hometheaterforum.com/bbs/equipment/28687.html
     
  18. Guy Kuo

    Guy Kuo Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 1999
    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I choose neither. The war must end.
     
  19. Bhagi Katbamna

    Bhagi Katbamna Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2000
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  20. Shane Martin

    Shane Martin Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 1999
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jeremy,
    The problem with the possible upgrade is that if Denon goes with their previous form of "flexible crossover" then its a global across the board setting unlike the way my Sony 444es has it set which is the ability to select it per channel in 10 hz increments from 40-120.
    I guess this is no big deal since you would keep it at large anyway but if you had the chance to adjust it per channel you'd appreciate it more than you might.
     

Share This Page