Help selecting speakers for home theater system

[PaneInTheGlass]

Hey everyone! This is my first time setting up a home theater system, and I would appreciate some help picking out the speakers. Right now, I'm looking at picking up an Onkyo TX-NR609 receiver, and either Onkyo SKS-HT540 or SLS Q-Line Gold speakers.

I selected the TX-NR609 because of its many HDMI inputs, its PC input, and unless I'm mistaken, its highly competitive price. I was also looking at the ONKYO HT-RC360, and couldn't find many differences, but I'm still looking into that.

I selected the SKS-HT540 based on the price and the specs. It looks like these speakers could out perform more expensive 5.x options. I do not need a 7.x setup, as my room isn't that big (sorry, I don't have the dimensions), but I would like to get the best speakers I can (obviously).

I stumbled across the SLS Q-Line Gold speakers and thought they looked like a competitive option, but I've had a lot of difficulty finding any technical information about them, which has lead me here.

How do you think the SLS Q-Line Gold speakers compare to the SKS-HT540's? In either case I'll probably buy the subwoofer separately, even though the Onkyo speakers come with one. Any other thoughts or advice relating to this setup? I haven't purchased anything yet, so everything is still up in the air. I know for certain that I will be connecting three composite, and at least three HDMI sources.

Sorry for the jumbled post. Normally I'd clean it up, but I'm rather short on time at the moment. Let me know if I've left anything out, or if you have any questions. Thanks!

 

[vi edit]

How are your speakers going to be set up? On a shelf? Hung on the wall? on stands? For "budget" I always lean towards the Polk 50/70 monitor towers frequently on sale at newegg. They are almost the same price as monitors and don't require additional costs of stands or wall mounts. Plus they are little more full range. Two of those and a CS1/2 center should run under $300 and produce a much more full range of sound than the small satellites in those systems. You can then grab anything cheap to thow up for surrounds as timbre matching those is not as important. Sub wise the BIC F12 12" can usually be bought under $200 and is an excellent product for the money.

http://www.amazon.com/BIC-America-F1...1986925&sr=1-1

I'm just not sold at all on the tiny little satellite systems and feel that many people easily outgrow them once they hear much better systems that cost a very small amount more.

 

[JSt0rm]

How big is your room?

 

[PaneInTheGlass]

Front and rear speakers will be on a shelf, though the front speakers could be floor-standing. I'd probably get stands for the side speakers, or come up with something else, but they would not be wall-mounted.

I did look into piece-mealing this together, but the Onkyo 7.1 system is under $250, and the Polk 3.0 system is already up to $280. The specs seemed pretty close (130W vs 150W, 55 Hz-50 kHz vs 42Hz-25kHz, 86 dB sensitivity vs 89db), so I wasn't sure what I'd be getting for the premium. I take your point that larger speakers = larger sound (quality being equal, of course), as that is my own intuition, but it seems like the reviews and ratings have been running counter to that. I can't do this now, but I'll go back and find some of the other systems I was looking into for comparison.

Also, I don't know if you looked at the customer images, but I found that the Onkyo speakers looked bigger in those photos than in the official product image. I'm not saying they're large, but they're bigger than a lot of the others I've seen.

I'd appreciate it if you could expand on this statement a little more: "You can then grab anything cheap to throw up for surrounds as timbre matching those is not as important." The "anything cheap" and "not as important" are throwing me off. The "timbre matching" isn't helping either, but I can google that later.

I like that sub!

Is there any reason to consider the SLS speakers over the Onkyo, or are we comparing the Onkyo's to other options at this point?

Out of curiosity, how would you break down prices for the low, mid, and high-end markets? As far as what I'm looking for, I'd put myself in the mid-range market. Ideally, this'll be my last purchase ever (or at least for quite some time), though practically, I know that's not the case. Still, I'd rather do it right now, than regret my compromises later.

Thanks for the input!

 

[vi edit]

For movie purposes all the surrounds do is a little background effects, ambience, ect. They really aren't a focused part of the sound stage where music or dialog is regularly spread across them like the front three speakers are. For the fronts you want the speakers to have the same "timbre". It's basically the sound characteristic of the speaker. You'll want them to have the same tweeters and similar crossover designs so that as sound/voices/music pans across the front stage it doesn't sound different between the fronts and the center. Given the distance and nature of the surrounds this isn't as important. Also given the limited demands on surround speakers they aren't asked to be as high end as the fronts. They just don't do as much. Hence the recommendation to save money on those and focus more on the fronts/subs.

As far as pricing teirs go...there's no quick and easy rule. The speaker/audio industry is one of the most lucrative ones out there. Prices range all the way from a $15 set of disposable speakers all the way up to $50,000 a pair hand crafted pieces of art. And there are hundreds, if not thousands of pricing steps between them.

If I had to put a very loose pricing category together I'd do something like this....

Figure a 5.1 system for pricing (2 fronts, center, 2 surrounds, and a sub)

Very low end: $200 "Home theatre in a box" setups.
Mid low end: $400 combo packs (Energy take 5 for example)
High low end: $600-$800 individual components like the Polk setup and BIC sub

And from there things start getting really messy as individual components and listening preferences start to become more important and internet direct brands start to become more present.

Used speakers can also be a great value. For example I'm using some in-wall speakers made by a company called Phase Technology that retailed originally for over $1000 a piece. I got them off of a guy on Ebay that did product demo's for $400 total for three of them. Not every deal is that good, but there are plenty out there.

EDIT:
I also wouldn't put a huge amount of merit into specs posted online. So many companies can lie/fudge numbers to make them look much better than they really are. They might be okay for a reference, but I wouldn't use that as the judging point.

 

[Nebor]

I've been using M-audio active monitors for HT surround for a few years now, but recently jumped on a deal to get Polk m70s, m40s, a cs2 and a psw125 for $500. I have no clue about receivers though. I'm thinking I'll get one of the Denon 23xx types for $500. I don't need a lot of the fancy features since it'll be connected to an HTPC.

 

[PaneInTheGlass]

I also wouldn't put a huge amount of merit into specs posted online. So many companies can lie/fudge numbers to make them look much better than they really are. They might be okay for a reference, but I wouldn't use that as the judging point.

Ow. Ow! Dangit! Sorry, it's just, I keep thinking about that and it hurts my brain.

I'm a PC guy, so specs are my thing. Specs are what make my world go round! Don't get me wrong, I'm used to manufacturer's flubbing their specs (contrast ratio and refresh rate, anyone?), but I was putting quite a bit of reliance on the notion that what was posted was what it was. (How's that for an acronym?)

It's sounding like you're saying that there's a significant difference in quality between combo packs and build-your-own, pretty much across the board. That combo packs are great for people who are looking for a quick fix, but that a lot more can be had for a bit more by buying the individual components. Don't let me put words in your mouth, I'm just checking to see if I'm on the right page.

*sigh* So it looks like I'm going back to the drawing board. Not that I'm complaining, as I say, I'm trying to do this right, but it'd be nice to buy one and be done. Anyway, I'll start specing out some individual speakers and hitting e-bay and CL (don't worry, I know not to buy out of the white van). I've been using Best Buy, Newegg, Amazon, Crutchfield, and Nebraska Furniture Mart. Any others I should throw in the mix? Should I be giving preference to three-way speakers, as opposed to two-way (in this case, I do know the difference, just wondering if it's significant)? Also, as long as I'm taking a fresh look at this, any thoughts on the receiver?

I measured my living room today, and though the space is bigger, what I'd describe as "The Audio Zone" is roughly 12'x12'. 12' wall-to-wall from front to back, and side to side is an open living room/dining room/kitchen area.

Again, thanks for the feedback! Keep it coming.

 

[vi edit]

I don't want to try and upsell somebody on something that they won't get value out of. Everyone has a budget and constraints within that. It's just that with home audio stuff there's just an overwhelming number of options and you can easily start improving your system in relatively small increments. In the sub $1000 range $50-$100 can easily move you into another category of performance. Once you get into the $1000 range you start getting into $500 price increments to seriously bump your performance. In the $2000 & up you start doubling your money. That's just a quick and dirty rule, and there are certainly exceptions.

I like the Polk line for the simple fact that they are reasonably priced, perform adequately and are easily interchanged between lines. Most polks (Monitor, Tsi, RTi, ect) can be switched between each other and still be timbre matched. What this means is that it leaves you upgrade paths that don't require you to swap out every speaker. And since they are reasonably priced, and highly available it's easy to FT/T them and upgrade to something different because so many other people have them. Newegg has sold thousands of them over the last couple years.

I prefer the stand alone speakers for that reason of interchangeability and for the fact that you can't replace displacement when it comes to performance and extension. There are some technical work arounds, but you aren't getting that in a $300 boxed set.

As far as the receiver goes, I like Onkyo. They offer a great bang for the buck and a huge feature list. They are stable, and reliable so long as you keep them well ventilated. They run VERY hot. I've got an RC-180 and it will almost burn your skin if you touch the top after a high volume action movie. They need ventilation. I would not suggest keeping it locked in an entertainment center.

 

[Howard]

Get a receiver with MultEQ. Worth it.

 

[Nebor]

Does bi-amping actually do anything? I notice that the Polk speakers support it, and most 7.1 receivers support it, but a lot of people online seem to suggest that it doesn't make a difference. Still, I've got to admit that having the capability and reading about it online has me a little bi-curious.

 

[bobdole369]

Not only that about specs, but when it comes to speakers, numbers don't really mean all that much - things change once in your listening area. As long as you aren't driving your speakers to the limit I'm willing to bet anything you buy will be damn good.

Second MultEQ - the little microphone that samples your speakers and room quality and automatically adjusts output to give you as flat as possible response. It by itself can replace a few hours of mic testing with impulse and whatnot. It's similar to adjusting your viewing device using a colorimeter and software - it makes a huge difference.

Ow. Ow! Dangit! Sorry, it's just, I keep thinking about that and it hurts my brain.

I'm a PC guy, so specs are my thing. Specs are what make my world go round! Don't get me wrong, I'm used to manufacturer's flubbing their specs (contrast ratio and refresh rate, anyone?), but I was putting quite a bit of reliance on the notion that what was posted was what it was. (How's that for an acronym?)

re: biamping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-amping

Some quick reading there.

My car is setup that way I have 4 amps for a 4-way soundstage. (sub, door low, dash mids, door highs) It's all about how you set things up. Either you use the passive crossover in the speaker (there is a network of resistors/capacitors/inductors within the speaker box that splits the woofer and the tweeter frequencies. If using a single amp - those frequencies are split by the crossover. If bi-amping, you have a method of splitting the frequencies in the amp and 2 runs to the speakers.

Advantages of bi-amping - cooler amplifier (not a big deal at all), no coloration (ideally) from the crossover network, more control (in the amp) of your crossover points.
Advantages of using the crossover - speaker system is used as electrically designed, coloration is intended and might be desirable, uses less amp channels.

 

[Howard]

Does bi-amping actually do anything? I notice that the Polk speakers support it, and most 7.1 receivers support it, but a lot of people online seem to suggest that it doesn't make a difference. Still, I've got to admit that having the capability and reading about it online has me a little bi-curious.

Yes, but very few HT users can take advantage of it properly.

 

[queequeg99]

Get a receiver with MultEQ. Worth it.

If you're not a purest and calibrate everything by hand with a nice SPL meter, this is good advice. My AVR has MultiEQ XT and the improvements were amazing. The big jump is to MultiEQ (which corrects for the sub).

 

[skriefal]

You'll need MultEQ XT32 if you want it to EQ the subwoofer. Standard MultEQ and MultEQ XT won't do it -- they won't EQ below 63hz.

 

[Howard]

You'll need MultEQ XT32 if you want it to EQ the subwoofer. Standard MultEQ and MultEQ XT won't do it -- they won't EQ below 63hz.

http://www.audyssey.com/audio-technology/multeq

Is this correct?

 

[kinder]

My only advice for speakers is this. Grab a Cd/DVD/blueray whatever you are familiar with and of a type you commonly listen to. Ie dance or rock music, action movie etc. and head to the places that carry the speakers you like and some other places. Ask them to play your disc and see what your ear likes at both low and high volumes. Get what your ears like and you'll be happier than just by following specs and what others say are good.

I had no budget and ended up with Klipsch stuff to my surprise.

 

[Howard]

My only advice for speakers is this. Grab a Cd/DVD/blueray whatever you are familiar with and of a type you commonly listen to. Ie dance or rock music, action movie etc. and head to the places that carry the speakers you like and some other places. Ask them to play your disc and see what your ear likes at both low and high volumes. Get what your ears like and you'll be happier than just by following specs and what others say are good.

I had no budget and ended up with Klipsch stuff to my surprise.

The problem is when you go to listen to speakers somewhere else, you're listening to more than just the speakers.

 

[Soccerman06]

I was searching for towers, about $1000 for the 2. What I found was these were about the best you can get for the money but it all depends on what your going for and how much you wanna spend.

Tekton Model Lore or M-Lore
Paradigm Monitor 7 or 9
Polk TSi 500
Klipsch RF-62 ll
B&W 683/4
Aperion Verus Forte
Monitor RX6
Wharfedale Diamond 10

Ive read quite a bit that the Tekton are the absolute best speakers all around, but Im weary about a transducer and tweeter being the primary sound for a HT setup. Back on subject, if you want good sound quality at reasonable volumes, your going to need to buy a legit system, not a cheap htib. You can easily build yourself a system from various setups for the same price as a mid range htib that will outperform almost any htib.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Check out this article:

http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/products/articles/131062.html

It gives you a bit of a rundown on the "frequency response" spec and shows a couple of hypothetical frequency response graphs. The published spec is basically complete BS (although it does help to determine how low the useful bass goes). What the guy doesn't tell you is that your room affects the curve even more than the actual speaker does. Moving your speaker 1 foot to the left can change its response curve at your listening position substantially. Having a "live" room with lots of hard surfaces will wreak havoc on the sound, as will having a too-"dead" room with lots of carpets, curtains, and other sound-absorbing furnishings. There are all kinds of treatments to correct room problems, but suffice it to say that the average home speaker is designed for the average home, and if you put it into a room with 2 walls full of floor-to-ceiling windows then they will not sound as intended.

So this is the reason for buying a receiver with MultEQ calibration. It takes actual measurements in your actual room with your actual speakers, and averages them over multiple listening positions to correct the sound. The frequency response of the speakers becomes a minor part of the overall equation.

Of course, this isn't to say that speaker quality should be ignored. Distortion happens when speakers are pushed too hard, and crap drivers will distort quickly and often. Crap designs can also make for peaks or valleys in the response curve that can become uncorrectable. IMHO a 2-way is harder to mess up than a 3-way. They are simply less complicated. All of the speakers I've ever owned have been 2-ways, and I have never found them wanting.

Size is another issue. There are two competing factors at work. First is the front baffle size; where the drivers are (usually) mounted. In general, a narrower baffle will give the sound better dispersion and phase characteristics. However, in general you want larger drivers for the bass, and they simply can't fit in a narrow baffle; and larger size of the speakers overall will also give better bass response.

In summary, acoustics is supremely analog. You can't apply your usual digital purchasing decision methods.

The Onkyo 60x series is a great value and my typical recommendation for most people. I also usually recommend the Polk Monitor or R series; towers in the front, bookshelves in the rear, center in the center :hmm:. They are a fantastic value at their "sale" price at Newegg or Fry's. Also, they have something which is stupidly missing from most speakers makers' lineups: continuity. Polk has made similar speakers using similar drivers for over a decade. Buying a new pair to aurally match to your existing ones isn't a problem, even if your existing ones are 5 years old.

Spend about $500 on the speakers and you'll be happy. If you can't afford that right away, just do the front towers and buy the rest later. Or, perhaps even better, buy a sub and the pair of bookshelf speakers that you will eventually use for rears; use those speakers as fronts until you can afford to buy the towers and center, and then move them to the rear.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Oops! My first double post in quite a long time!

 

[PaneInTheGlass]

@vi

I'm with you. I don't feel like you were trying to talk me into anything, but you did make some good points which allowed me to do some more research and come to my own conclusions.

@queequeg

Thanks for the tip! I will look for a MultEQ enabled receiver, that sounds like a feature I could really use.

@Soccerman

Thanks for the list! I was surprised you didn't have any JBLs in there. I've been checking those out lately, and so far they're looking pretty good.

cd /bin/bash

Thanks for the link! That was an excellent article. I knew that amplifier's had response curves like that, but I didn't realize that speakers were so varied. I'm glad I'm looking into this more closely. I'm the type who likes to know what he's getting into. EDIT: When you say spend ~$500 and I'll be happy, is that $500 for full 5.1, or $500 for, e.g., 3.1?


So here's where I'm at. I'm starting to get a better idea of what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for bi-amping, but it wouldn't hurt anything if I had it. I do think two-way is sufficient, and indeed preferable in some cases. I don't think I need particularly high wattage as I'd say my needs are more modest. At the same time, though, I'd like to keep this system around for a long time, which means it'll be moving it to a new place at some point down the road.

For those that are interested, here's the current incarnation of my short list:

~$100:
Polk Audio Monitor50

$100~$200:
Polk Audio Monitor70
Polk Audio TSi300
Yamaha NS-F210

$200~$250:
Klipsch WF-34
JBL ES90BK
Cambridge Audio S70


I like Polk, Klipsch, and JBL. I'm still looking into Cambridge Audio.

Also, I found a really good speaker FAQ over at crutchfield that others might find useful.

 

[PaneInTheGlass]

The more I look at it, the more I like the Klipsch. Here's the setup from Newegg:

Front: Klipsch WF-34 x 2 = $499.98
Center: Klipsch WC-24 = $199.99
Rear: Klipsch WB-14 = $199.99

Total: $899.96

I'm holding my breath that the pricing and stock holds out. I'm not quite ready to pull the trigger, but I'm darn close. I'm still debating the rear speakers. Part of me would love to have the matching set, the other part would rather not spend that much on aesthetics. Considering that I will also be listening to audio from time to time (and yes, I am fond of classical), I'd be interested in knowing the importance of the rear channel in cinema/games vs pure audio.

My other concern is that this does put me in a different price range. The Klipsch have come out on top, but that was when they were being compared to less expensive options. I'd like to find some more qualified competition before I declare a winner.

Caveats aside, though, I've no doubt that these speakers would be great for my setup. If I weren't risking a 15% restocking fee, I'd probably dive in head first and never look back.

Thanks for all your help so far, and enjoy your Thanksgiving, all you fellow Americans!

Sidebar: I found another link with helpful info: http://www.ishtek.com/spkr_basics.htm

 

[Soccerman06]

Remember that the center channel provides the most sound, or atleast the focus so spending more on the center would be something to look into.

 

[Howard]

Check out ziggy's thread, also in AVHT. You'll find some info in there too.

 

[PaneInTheGlass]

From [thread=2205740]z1ggy's thread[/thread]:

I'm actually in a similar situation. FWIW, I'm not sold on the B2031P. I think floor-standers are the way to go, especially for cinema.

I am interested in your philosophy.

For me it comes down to a few things. Part of it is that I'll mainly be using my rig for watching movies, so I'd rather get speakers designed for home theater use, as opposed to studio use, which it seems is how the B2031P's are designed. Home theaters vary widely in shape, size, and acoustic damping, whereas a studio is a fairly controlled, and more uniform environment. Considering that the demands of cinema vs audio reproduction are also different, I'd rather have something that was meant to be used the way I plan to use it, rather then using something outside of its intended design.

Along those same lines is my personal preference toward floor standing speakers. I could put my speakers on a shelf, but I would rather have them on the side, meaning that if I got bookshelf speakers, I'd have to get a stand. I don't have any problem with a stand per se, but floor standing speakers are designed with the stand in mind when it comes to sound reproduction, whereas the bookshelf design might require some form of compensation.

I would also like to have the option for a center channel. I know this was discussed in the other thread, but I would rather have a matching center channel then try to find something that might match my setup.

Which leads me into aesthetics. There's something refreshing about having a set of nice looking, cosmetically matching speakers. The B2031P are perfectly utile, but they just don't have the same style that goes into the design of the home theater models.

So that's my thought process. It's almost entirely subjective, but then again, it seems like almost everything is when it comes to audio!