Relative importance of the speakers. (1 Viewer)

[ArtG]

In a nearby thread, "Phantom Center", there's some discussion on the importance of a real center.

Just for fun (or for allocating $$$), let's rank speaker importance. Put another way, if they all cost the same, which speaker would you least like to blow just before a DVD evening? Anyone (or everyone) think otherwise?


Center
Sub
Surround
Front
Rear center

 

[EricHaas]

From most to least important:

Front mains
subwoofer
center
surrounds

That assumes you are talking about QUALITY, meaning "for what speakers is it most important to have the best quality?" Another way of framing the question is "for which speaker type would an upgrade have the most overall sonic impact?" If that is the question, then the above is my list.

If your question is "which would you least like to blow" then reverse the last two. I'd rather have a good quality center than good quality surrounds, but then again a 5.1 system works reasonably well with no center but not with no surrounds. So if I had to go without one or the other entirely, I'd go without the center and keep the surrounds.

 

[Ben_wood]

If all the speakers cost the same amount, I would least like to fry the center. Second would be the sub, third would be the fronts, then the surrounds. Last is the rear center (that I don't even have - I'm only 5.1 :b )

 

[Holadem]

IMO the inpotance of Center is overrated. While I prefer a real center to a "phantom" one, I would rather blow my center speaker than any other one. I should know, it happened twice already
--
Holadem

 

[BenK]

The majority of sound does come from the center. So my list is the same as Ben's from most important to least:

center
sub
fronts
surround

 

[Doug BW]

I think this is an easy question:
Most important speakers are the fronts. No receiver that I know of lets you redirect the front channels to any other speaker, so if you lose a front, you lose the channel.
Second is the subwoofer. In theory, you can redirect the bass to other speakers, but in reality few people (especially me) have other speakers that can reproduce the bass with authority down to the subsonics.
Third are the surrounds.
Fourth is the center. I don't have a center, but if I did and it broke, I could reconfigure the receiver to say I didn't. No center channel information is lost. There are trade-offs between having and not having a center. The only case IMO where having a center is a big plus is when you have listeners sitting way off center. (Not an issue in my room.)
Fifth is the rear surround. If one of the two rear surrounds breaks, I'd just reconfigure the receiver to say I had only one. The difference isn't huge between two and one.

 

[Chas_T]

Most Important to Least.
However let's not create any bad karma here with thinking about blowing speakers!!
1. Fronts
2. Sub
3. Center
4. Surrounds

 

[Drew Eckhardt]

Mains. I don't know any movie actors personally, and am not going to notice if they're off. OTOH, I hear enough live music to be offended at inaccurate reproduction and haven't seen many movies without a sound track.

If the mains are small, the sub comes next because the bottom octaves are missing without it.

Surrounds. It's nice to have the sense of immersion.

If the mains are large, the sub fits here.

And finally, the center. Seated in the sweet spot, it's not necessary.

 

[Geno]

I think alot has to do with which surround mode you use. I use 5.1 and I would classify them as:
1 mains
2 center
3 surround
4 sub [dont even have mine up yet]

 

[Pablo Abularach]

ArtG,

I think for movies the best setup is

Center
Sub
Mains
Rear

For music

Mains
Sub
Center
Rear

I mostly use my setup for movies, so for me the center and the sub are the more used speakers, therefore the most important.

 

[Ben_wood]

Pablo makes a good point, there is a difference in the way that HT and music utilize the various speakers. I have to agree with his two separate rankings and the order that he ranked them in.