Speaker suggestions for a small-med size bonus room (1 Viewer)

[DDG]

Hello, I'm planning on putting a 5.1.4 in my future bonus room which is 16' x 14' x 8'. I have a Denon X3800H on order but am not sure on what speakers to get for a small-ish room. Any suggestions? I'd like to keep it around $2k if possible but am willing to go up more if it's a drastic difference.

 

[Mike Up]

Smallish room, I consider that a medium room while many others consider it a large room.

I would recommend going to a 7.1 or a 7.1.2 setup before going to a 5.1.4 setup. Many members here have found that the rear surround speakers add more than the ambience atmos speakers.

I recently have gone to Elac Debut 2.0 B6.2 and C6.2 speakers and found them to exceed my other Polk and Infinity speaker's performance. I use Polk Blackstone TL1 speakers for the side and rear surrounds as they blend very good with the Elacs and are easily placed pretty much anywhere on a wall by their tiny size. I use a SVS sealed SB-2000 12" subwoofer. It's strong below 20Hz and literally shakes my sofa and anything on it! SVS just recently discontinued it but have the SB-2000 pro that adds room correction and smart phone control.

If you have the room on your walls, you could also use Elacs debut 2.0 OW4.2 on wall speakers. For the Atmos channels, the Elac Debut 2.0 A4.2 reflective speakers sit on top of the B6.2 speakers.

The Polk Blackstone TL1 speakers are very small speakers (2-1/2" woofer & 1/2" tweeter) with a large speaker voice. I use them exclusively in my media room 5.1 setup.

Amazon seems to be cheapest for the speakers and has great return policies. The Elac B6.2 are $240/pair, Elac C6.2 is $230 each, SVS SB-2000 Pro is $900 each, and Polk Blackstone TL1 speakers are $68 each but packages called TL150 or TL1600, can be bought cheaper than 4 individual speakers. The Elac OW4.2 is $200/pair and Elac A4.2 is $200/pair

At Amazon, for a Elac + SVS SB-2000 pro sub, 7.1.2 or 5.1.4 setup (rear atmos modules would have to sit on stands as surround speakers are on-wall), price would be $1,970.

Good luck on your decision

 

[DDG]

Thank you for the helpful reply. Do you think the two rear speakers could be TL1s and the left and right surrounds Elac OW4.2s? I figure the rear two are going to be the least utilized and thus I could cut cost on that.

 

[JohnRice]

Honestly, if there is no space behind the viewing area, I’d stick with a 5.1 or 5.1.2 setup. Rear surrounds need to have space between them and the viewer to really be effective.

 

[DDG]

Yeah, there wouldn't be a lot of space behind. With the new construction it wouldn't be much of a problem to run 4 overhead speakers if I'm going to the trouble with 2.

 

[Mike Up]

Thank you for the helpful reply. Do you think the two rear speakers could be TL1s and the left and right surrounds Elac OW4.2s? I figure the rear two are going to be the least utilized and thus I could cut cost on that.

Just as the front speakers should all be the same or close, the side and rear surrounds should be the same. Mainly for seamless pans across the rear sound field. You want seamless pans across the front sound field as well. So try keeping the rear speakers the same and keeping the front speakers the same.

I previously was using Infinity Primus P143 speakers for the side surrounds and Infinity Entra Point Five speakers for the rear surround. They do not sound the same and have different voicing. Now having the same Polk TL1 speakers for all 4 provides a much more solid rear sound field. Plus I feel the tiny Polks sound better when coupled with a subwoofer.

 

[Mike Up]

Honestly, if there is no space behind the viewing area, I’d stick with a 5.1 or 5.1.2 setup. Rear surrounds need to have space between them and the viewer to really be effective.

I don't agree with you on this as I have heard a large benefit using my rear surrounds, with side surrounds, over using just 2 surround speakers. My rear surround speakers are about 1-1/2' behind listening position and just over 1' over listening position and sound great, much better than 5.1.

I have a 5.1 system in my media room using the same surround speakers, Polk TL1, and having rear surround speakers makes a HUGE difference. In my living room with rear and side surrounds, I have a rear sound field that completely surrounds the rear space of the listening position. With my 5.1 surround system, it sounds good but is lacking the full 180 degree rear surround field as there is no sound coming from behind you.

I should state as well, to get the best effect, you must have the side surrounds directly across from the listening position or less than 1' in front of the listening position.

Articles I've read recommend putting side surrounds slightly in front of the listening position for rear wall listening positions with rear surround speakers. This allows speakers to have greater sound separation and article writer said with side surrounds just slightly in front of listening position, speakers will still sound as if they are from the sides. I tried both positions and didn't notice much of a difference with side surrounds directly from the sides or 90 degrees from seating position or 1' or less in front of listening of listening position.

 

[JohnRice]

People tend to hear the results they expect to hear. The problem with having surround speakers 2-3 feet from your head is, they sound like speakers that are 2-3 feet from your head. Of course, often the reaction with that is to say "Wow! I can really hear those speakers." That's exactly what I dislike about it. Surround sounds are supposed to be environmental, not right next to your head. When they're that close, there's no chance for them to integrate with the room, and actually sound environmental.

I have no illusions of changing anyone's mind. But there is zero down side to setting up a 5.1 system first to see what you think, as long as your receiver can be expanded to 7.1 or 5.1.2. I also recall someone not very long ago stating that ELAC Debuts are "The brightest speaker I've ever heard." Or something to that effect.

 

[Mike Up]

I also recall someone not very long ago stating that ELAC Debuts are "The brightest speaker I've ever heard." Or something to that effect.

Yes, the Debut 2.0 B5.2 and the reason why I bought the Debut 2.0 B6.2 . BTW, Erins audio corner tests confirmed that against the B6.2.

The B5.2s were brighter in the mid treble than my previous Polk TSI100s. The TSI100s were not as bright as B5.2s but brighter than the B6.2 but in the higher midrange, lower treble.

Funny thing is that when I compared the Elac Debut 2.0 B6.2 to the Polk Signature Elite ES20, (with the crutchfield compare app), they sounded very much a like tonally. ASR test measurements showed little difference in the frequency response so no wonder they sounded so much a like. But the smaller Polk ES15 was definitely brighter than the Polk ES20. So I guess to keep sensitivity up on the smaller bookshelf speakers, they don't pad down the tweeter to match the lower output of the woofer.

BTW, I have done several tests comparing 7.1 vs 5.1 on my system, and 7.1 always wins. With the speakers 1.5' behind and a bit over 1' above, they are not right in your ear especially when level matched. They add considerably to the rear sound field. The proof is in the pudding as I only have to step in my other home theater setup room to compare directly against the 5.1 system using the same surround speakers.

Each to their own, we don't have to agree on everything.

 

[Mike Up]

Right from Audioholics:

Small Room​	< 1,500 ft^3​
Medium Room​	1,500 ft^3 to 3,000 ft^3​
Large Room​	3,000 ft^3 to 5,000 ft^3​
Extreme Room​	> 5,000 ft^3​

 

[smithbrad]

People tend to hear the results they expect to hear. The problem with having surround speakers 2-3 feet from your head is, they sound like speakers that are 2-3 feet from your head. Of course, often the reaction with that is to say "Wow! I can really hear those speakers." That's exactly what I dislike about it. Surround sounds are supposed to be environmental, not right next to your head. When they're that close, there's no chance for them to integrate with the room, and actually sound environmental.

I always thought that was the purpose of individual distance and volume controls for each speaker. I have a 7.1 system with the front speakers about 12 feet away, side speakers about 6 feet away, and back speakers about 3 feet away. They are very well balanced, or as you say "environmental". I'm sure there is a point where too close is too close and the height of the speakers also comes into play. All I can say is that 3 feet away and around 2 feet above ear level isn't it, at least not based on my experience.

 

[JohnRice]

All of us have to make decisions regarding our systems, which involves making compromises. I'm more interested in the audio of my system, and that involves compromising on the display, which in my case is a top of the line, but budget brand (Vizio P Series) QLED. I could try to lie to myself and claim that's not a compromise relative to a good OLED, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a compromise. A lot of people here want the largest possible image, which means projection, which has its own compromises compared to pretty much any light emitting display. If they are realistic, they will acknowledge projection has inherent image quality disadvantages, but that they are willing to accept them in favor of the larger image. Or, they can choose to lie to themselves and deny those disadvantages exist. Decisions, priorities, and compromises.

There is a lot more at issue than just speaker levels and distance timing with having speakers 2-3 feet from your head. That is a compromise a lot of people have to face, since it's common for seating to be at the rear of the room. Denying it is a compromise doesn't change the fact that it is a compromise. An alternate compromise might be to go with a 5.1 or 5.1.2 system instead of 7.1. They are all compromises that have to be faced in the real world. No matter how satisfied anyone might be with the compromise of having rear surrounds 2-3 feet from their head, it still does not produce as good of a surround effect as having them further away, and especially further behind the viewer. Most people don't have that option, or often they move the seating back further for other reasons. It is all a matter of choosing the compromises we are most willing to accept.

My HT is set up with audio, and especially music reproduction, the first priority. That involves compromises in most other areas. It's not practical to have an enormous display, because it's on a stand four feet away from the front wall, because the front speakers need to be that far into the room for ideal stereo imaging. It also makes projection pretty much impossible. Those are the compromises I choose based on my own priorities, available space, and budget. Then I have the choice to recognize and accept the compromises I have made, or I can lie to myself and claim they don't exist. I have no problem admitting to them. I have thought this all out extensively over the decades and I try to be fully cognizant of the advantages and disadvantages of all of them.

 

[smithbrad]

Based on that logic everything is a compromise if we can't own an actual commercial theater, and even that is a compromise because some are better than others.

My room is 18' by 15', yes that is a compromise due to the rectangular nature based on multiples, but it is what it is and has worked quite well for me considering some of the alternatives I could have dealt with without a designated space. Yes, my projection system is 1080p vs 4k UHD, which is a compromise. That said most of what I watch doesn't even have a UHD version available, so not much of a compromise. I acoustically treated the front, side, and back walls. Is it perfect? Of course not, but is it better than if I left the walls just drywall? Absolutely. When I originally built my set up (2004), I set aside about 30% speakers, 30% for projector and screen, 20% for equipment, and 20% for the room characteristics with an overall budget of $25K. The only things I ever regretted was buying a discounted top of the line receiver (Denon 5803) and a 720p DLP projector for as much as I paid. Both were outdated way too soon. I've upgraded the projector twice since then and I've since purchased a mid-level Marantz receiver with a plan on getting a separate power amp early next year.

Yes, audio is much more than just distance and volume settings. For example, the characteristics of the speakers, room dimensions and layout, as well as any acoustic treatments. I've tested my room as 5.1 and 7.1. The 7.1 setup is more enveloping. Whatever compromises may be involved by my having the rear speakers 3 feet back and 2 feet over listening position, is a far less a compromise than not using the rear speakers at all. Isn't that what all this is about positive gains wherever we can get them?

One compromise I have made is in the bass department. I have a single M&K MX 350 sub. I know I can do better with the brands available now and likely should have more than one. However, I'm no longer in the bass "thumping" sound I once was. I earlier year I would have wanted to try and recreate the water in the glass effect from Jurassic Park. Most of what I watch today doesn't require massive bass, and frankly I don't need it either. Priorities.

We compromise and we prioritize but all towards making positive gains towards our ultimate goals, while working within the confines of any budgetary or environmental restrictions. I feel more than comfortable I've attained that based on whatever compromises I've had to make, and that includes going 7.1 over 5.1 within my environment.

 

[smithbrad]

There is a lot more at issue than just speaker levels and distance timing with having speakers 2-3 feet from your head. That is a compromise a lot of people have to face, since it's common for seating to be at the rear of the room. Denying it is a compromise doesn't change the fact that it is a compromise. An alternate compromise might be to go with a 5.1 or 5.1.2 system instead of 7.1. They are all compromises that have to be faced in the real world. No matter how satisfied anyone might be with the compromise of having rear surrounds 2-3 feet from their head, it still does not produce as good of a surround effect as having them further away, and especially further behind the viewer. Most people don't have that option, or often they move the seating back further for other reasons. It is all a matter of choosing the compromises we are most willing to accept.

To be more direct in my response. Compromise is one thing, could rear speakers sound better if placed further back than 3 feet, very possibly, I've never had the opportunity to experience my speakers farther back, but I'm open to that possibility. However, how I interpreted your earlier response was that 3 feet wasn't just a compromise but a determent. That is what I disagree with, at least based on my experience within my setup. In my case, I find it to be superior to 5.1.

 

[JohnRice]

That horse is dead. Let's move on.

 

[smithbrad]

That horse is dead. Let's move on.

You initiated the dialog based on your responses. I've respected your overall knowledge of speakers, subwoofers, receivers, and amplifiers, it is far greater than mine. However, in this case I have some personal experience. Unfortunately, you chose to be more dismissive in your approach. That's fine, I'm done. This isn't a normal area that I hang out in, I won't interrupt your domain any further.

 

[JohnRice]

I don't want to extend this, but maybe I should explain that there are very few absolutes in this hobby. Most things are opinion and suggestion. Different people will have different opinions. I have provided some opinions and tried to explain them as well as I can. Others may do the same. There's no need to take the comments from others personally.