swan r3, r2 or comparisons? (1 Viewer)

[Adam_mmm]

Does anyone have any feedback or opinions on the swan r3 or r2's. If so, are they worth the price tag. I am looking at creating a 5.1 system and 1200.00 for 4 speakers is steep, but I am willing to do it if the quality is really there. Any comparisons that could give me the same sound but for a lesser price? Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[Richard_B]

www.av123.com has similar products and would also be worth checking out if you're interested in the Swans.

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

I would skip the R2s. They use a single speaker at full range instead of a woofer/tweeter w/ a crossover. If you're looking in the $1200 range i'd look at 4.1 mains, C3 center, and either R3 or 2.1 surrounds. I personaly prefer a monopole surround, that's why i went with the 2.1s. It also saved me about $100. If you really want dipoles, skip the R2 and go w/ the R3.

All the prices I mentioned were in black cherry. If you want the rosewood finish, add 50% to each price. I personly like the black cherry better, even though it's a vinyl laminate instead of real veneer. The tops and bottoms on the black cherry are still hand rubbed piano black laquer.

It would be tough to put ANY 5ch system together in Rocket's for around $1200, but is possible if you stick w/ bookshelf mains and surrounds and get the smaller center. In this sittuation i think the Swan's are the better choice since the towers and big center are the highlight of the rocket lineup.

 

[Seth_L]

ELT Stephen?

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Adam;

When I first picked up my Swans speakers (back when they were sold at AV123), I had a pair of 4.1s in the front, a C3 speaker in the center channel, and a pair of 2.1s in the surround channels. About a year later, I traded the 2.1s with someone here at HTF, who wanted to get rid of his R3 surround speakers.

If you can afford them, I would recommend getting the R3s. With the 2.1s as your surrounds, you're going to find that sound is a little bit too directional, and easy to locate. With the R3s, you get a much more diffuse soundfield in the rear, resulting in a more natural affect. At least that's been my experience with them.

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

What Jeff is mentioning also comes down a lot to personal preference. I prefer the somewhat localizable effects of monopole surrounds over dipoles. With a pair of monopole surrounds that image well you will still get a wide and convincing rear soundstage without the phase/reflection effects you get from dipoles. Dipoles are also much less than optimal for multi-channel audio such as DVD-A and SACD.

Seth,

The ELT is not part of the rocket line up. It's also more of an HTIB type system and while the sound is VERY good from what i've heard i still believe it would have some trouble keeping up the swan's package i mentioned earlier. It's not really a fair comparison as the 4.1s are full range tower speakers and the 2.1 surrounds are a much larger bookshelf design capable of reaching down to the 50hz range. Frequency response isn't everything but it's hard for any compact/micro bookshelf to keep up with a speaker that much larger with similar quality components and design. Plus the ELT package without the sub comes in at about half the price of the 4.1/2.1/C3 combination from Swans, which makes clearer that a direct comparison isn't quite in order. This is no way meant to take away from the sound quality, craftsmanship, or bang-for-buck of the ELT, just to put things into perspective.

 

[Seth_L]

Stephen,

I would agree, but the original poster seemed to say he though 1200 for 4 speakers was steep. The ELT from AV123 for $900 with 5 speakers and a sub, seems like it might be right what he's looking for.

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

If $1200 for 4 speakers seemed steep then I was thinking $1200 for 5 speakers might sound a little better. Also, 4.1 mains, a C3 center, and 2.1 surrounds would come in under $1200 at $1130, and the guys at www.theaudioinsider.com will usually discount the speakers to the point where it works out as free shipping if you give them a call and talk to them for a little while.

 

[BobAlbano]

Here is a link to a review on the ELT package that was mentioned here. It seems by the review that the ELT package is a great choice for those looking at the under 1K price bracket.
http://www.hometheatertalk.com/ubb/F.../008953.html#8

 

[Adam_mmm]

Seth,

sorry about the confusion when I mentioned the speaker price of 1200 I was not including the sub which I gues I should have mentioned. I will probably go with the much recommended svs. The total price for speakers would be about 1800. Thanks for the existing recomendations. keepem coming.

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

Adam, I'd give the Stryke Mini Thunder a good look. At the introductory price of $550 and choice of 13 veneers it'd be hard to beat, even by an SVS. Could probably come up w/ a veneer/stain to match the Swan's black cherry too. Otherwise the SVS 20-39PCi or PB1-ISD would do the job very nicely. Adire Dharmahn or Daeva might be a few other good options, but it's unclear whether or not they're still being built.

Let us know what you decide, and good luck!

 

[John E Janowitz]

The big advantage to the Mini Thunder is that it has the dual PR's. The difficulty with small subs is always in getting the tuning low enough. The smaller the box, the longer the port has to be. You have a tradeoff to deal with. You can either have a larger port and tune higher which hurts the low end output. OR, you can use a smaller diameter port to get the lower tuning and then run into issues with port noise and compression.

The PR's allow you to get the lower tuning without any compression or vent noise issues. The only drawback to the PR's is the additional cost. That's why most manufacturers don't use them.

John