Why Such Tiny Speakers in HT ?
 

The classic configuration of two substantial speakers (and occasionally a
subwoofer) is the accepted way to achieve fidelity in pure audio systems.
For some reason, home theater systems typically feature tiny front speakers
and centers that are not a whole lot bigger (let's forget the rears or 6.1
and 7.1 for now). These speakers would not be taken seriously in a pure
audio system. I'm obviously new to this, but even the 5.1 (speakers only)
systems I've seen offered at prices in the $1,000 range still use this
approach. For that kind of money, shouldn't we be seeing some speakers of
more substantial size that can produce the kind of sound quality as small
studio monitors? Is this HT approach accepted simply because people want
the speakers to be as unobtrusive as possible? Can someone help me
understand why HT is the way it is? Thanks.

- Magnusfarce (ready to be ripped a bit)

Compromise. 5.1 speakers for $1000 doesn't get you much and, yes, the
desire for them to be inconspicuous is dominant. The laws of physics
have not changed.

Kal

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:12:52 -0800, "Magnusfarce"
wrote:

The classic configuration of two substantial speakers (and occasionally a
subwoofer) is the accepted way to achieve fidelity in pure audio systems.
For some reason, home theater systems typically feature tiny front speakers
and centers that are not a whole lot bigger (let's forget the rears or 6.1
and 7.1 for now). These speakers would not be taken seriously in a pure
audio system. I'm obviously new to this, but even the 5.1 (speakers only)
systems I've seen offered at prices in the $1,000 range still use this
approach. For that kind of money, shouldn't we be seeing some speakers of
more substantial size that can produce the kind of sound quality as small
studio monitors? Is this HT approach accepted simply because people want
the speakers to be as unobtrusive as possible? Can someone help me
understand why HT is the way it is? Thanks.

- Magnusfarce (ready to be ripped a bit)

Yes, tiny speakers (especially Bose) sound like pure ****. The $1,000
all-in-one systems are not much better either.

But sadly, the people who buy this stuff could really care less about the
sound. They just want tiny speakers. To each his own, I guess!


"Magnusfarce" wrote in message
...
The classic configuration of two substantial speakers (and occasionally a
subwoofer) is the accepted way to achieve fidelity in pure audio systems.
For some reason, home theater systems typically feature tiny front
speakers
and centers that are not a whole lot bigger (let's forget the rears or 6.1
and 7.1 for now). These speakers would not be taken seriously in a pure
audio system. I'm obviously new to this, but even the 5.1 (speakers only)
systems I've seen offered at prices in the $1,000 range still use this
approach. For that kind of money, shouldn't we be seeing some speakers of
more substantial size that can produce the kind of sound quality as small
studio monitors? Is this HT approach accepted simply because people want
the speakers to be as unobtrusive as possible? Can someone help me
understand why HT is the way it is? Thanks.

- Magnusfarce (ready to be ripped a bit)

"Magnusfarce" wrote in
:

For some reason, home theater systems typically
feature tiny front speakers and centers that are not a whole lot
bigger (let's forget the rears or 6.1 and 7.1 for now).

Are you looking at Bose stuff - Bose is crap.

However, one explanation is that many people buying into home theater are
uninformed - so they prefer asthetics over sound quality. Another possible
explanation is that home theater enthusists are not as picky about sound
quality as an audiophile - afterall home theater is about the complete
experience from the screen to the movie to the sound.

These
speakers would not be taken seriously in a pure audio system. I'm
obviously new to this, but even the 5.1 (speakers only) systems I've
seen offered at prices in the $1,000 range still use this approach.

$1000.00 is not all that money when it comes to speakers. But, you can get
some decent speakers for that price

For that kind of money, shouldn't we be seeing some speakers of more
substantial size that can produce the kind of sound quality as small
studio monitors?

You need to shop around a bit - if you're looking solely at the packages
offered at Best Buy or Circuit City you'll probably be disappointed. You
shoud check out some home theater specialty stores... those stores should
be able to put together a decent package with decent mains for 1000 -
1500.00.

Is this HT approach accepted simply because people
want the speakers to be as unobtrusive as possible? Can someone help
me understand why HT is the way it is? Thanks.

Spend some more money - there are full sized Home Theater Speakers!

http://www.axiomaudio.com/epic80.html

If your budget is more limited (like mine), take a look at JBL's Northridge
series speakers. You can find JBL E80s online for ~200.00ea. The JBL EC35
is a pretty good center channel - it costs about 200.00 as well. Otherwise
Athena makes a good set of main speakers.

You can also buy your home theater in stages - Mains, then Center or Sub
then the rears. And whatever you do... STAY AWAY FROM BOSE!

P.S. if you're looking for a pair of tiny speakers that sound good, check
out Mirage's Nanosats or Mirage's Omnisats. The Omnisats are highly rated:

http://miragespeakers.com/omnistat.shtml

Mirage also has full sized speakers too - but a 5.1 set is out of your
$1000.00 budget.

--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

"Magnusfarce" wrote in message
...
The classic configuration of two substantial speakers (and occasionally a
subwoofer) is the accepted way to achieve fidelity in pure audio systems.
For some reason, home theater systems typically feature tiny front
speakers
and centers that are not a whole lot bigger (let's forget the rears or 6.1
and 7.1 for now). These speakers would not be taken seriously in a pure
audio system. I'm obviously new to this, but even the 5.1 (speakers only)
systems I've seen offered at prices in the $1,000 range still use this
approach. For that kind of money, shouldn't we be seeing some speakers of
more substantial size that can produce the kind of sound quality as small
studio monitors? Is this HT approach accepted simply because people want
the speakers to be as unobtrusive as possible? Can someone help me
understand why HT is the way it is? Thanks.

- Magnusfarce (ready to be ripped a bit)



I had the same concerns, as you do. I've spent most of life listening to
high-end equipment (electrostatic speakers and headphones, high-power amps,
etc...).

I recently decided to set up a 5.1 system, in a separate room. My main goal
was to make the music sound good. After about a week of going from store to
store, and listening to dozens of speakers, I was getting pretty
disappointed, because I didn't want to spend $600 per speaker. The B+W 600
series $300/unit speakers are HIGHLY overrated (they sound horrible). The
Boston Acoustics $300/unit speakers sound like boxes (but their top end is
pretty nice). The others I listened to, in that price range, were worse.

The last system I heard (the one I bought) was a 5.1 system from Monitor
Audio. It is their Radius system. For $1500, these speakers are very
impressive. They're small, yes, but their sound is huge. It took me a while
to set them up properly, but I'm very happy with their overall sound
quality.

I was just listening to one of my favorite "audiophile" discs -- Ana Caram's
"Rio After Dark". This system has amazing detail and very smooth response.
The top end excels, while the bottom end is very acceptable (with the 8"
sealed self-powered subwoofer).

Good luck.

Bob

"Magnusfarce" wrote in message
...
The classic configuration of two substantial speakers (and occasionally a
subwoofer) is the accepted way to achieve fidelity in pure audio systems.
For some reason, home theater systems typically feature tiny front
speakers
and centers that are not a whole lot bigger (let's forget the rears or 6.1
and 7.1 for now). These speakers would not be taken seriously in a pure
audio system. I'm obviously new to this, but even the 5.1 (speakers only)
systems I've seen offered at prices in the $1,000 range still use this
approach. For that kind of money, shouldn't we be seeing some speakers of
more substantial size that can produce the kind of sound quality as small
studio monitors? Is this HT approach accepted simply because people want
the speakers to be as unobtrusive as possible? Can someone help me
understand why HT is the way it is? Thanks.

Most H/T systems are sub + satellite designs, forsaking full range main
speakers for size (and cost) with the subwoofer providing the bottom couple
octaves. A well-designed mini speaker can (and often does) sound as good as
its larger brethren over its design frequency range (which rarely goes much
below about 100 hz), but it won't have the ability to play at the loudest
volumes that a large speaker's array of mid-high freq drivers can provide.

The trick is having a suitable sub, placing it properly, and setting
crossover frequencies so that the whole system can provide the full range of
the audio spectrum in a seamless manner. Obviously, the better full-range
systems can do it in one box.

R / John

Magnusfarce wrote:
The classic configuration of two substantial speakers (and
occasionally a subwoofer) is the accepted way to achieve fidelity in
pure audio systems. For some reason, home theater systems typically
feature tiny front speakers and centers that are not a whole lot
bigger (let's forget the rears or 6.1 and 7.1 for now). These
speakers would not be taken seriously in a pure audio system. I'm
obviously new to this, but even the 5.1 (speakers only) systems I've
seen offered at prices in the $1,000 range still use this approach.
For that kind of money, shouldn't we be seeing some speakers of more
substantial size that can produce the kind of sound quality as small
studio monitors? Is this HT approach accepted simply because people
want the speakers to be as unobtrusive as possible? Can someone help
me understand why HT is the way it is? Thanks.

- Magnusfarce (ready to be ripped a bit)

No ripping needed. It depends on a users choice and available room. My
choice was for floor standing fronts that are about 40" high, with each one
containing a 12" 300 watt sub (Cambridge Soundworks T500 Newton) and match
the RPTV nicely.

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

Compromise. 5.1 speakers for $1000 doesn't get you much

I respectfully disagree.

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...cbm170hts.html

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...htm200hts.html

http://www.av123.com/products_catego...ers&brand =13

Or find 5 decent speakers for $900. and add this sub. There are lots of
good alternatives at this price point.

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshow...=300-632&DID=7


and, yes, the
desire for them to be inconspicuous is dominant.

The laws of physics
have not changed.

The laws of physics haven't changed but the economic rules have been
altered. You no longer have to give retail stores a large chunk of your
money. Better value can be had by eliminating the middle man. Some
folks will still benefit from going to a retailer but the benefit will
not be the most bang for the buck.
Before buying direct, do some homework. The values are there but be
leary of the bottom feeders that use the internet to sell every manner
of junk. That's true in everything, not just audio.

David


Kal

David B. wrote:

Compromise. 5.1 speakers for $1000 doesn't get you much

I respectfully disagree.

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...cbm170hts.html

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...htm200hts.html

http://www.av123.com/products_catego...ers&brand =13

But each of these is still a satellite/sub system, with crossovers between
70-90 Hz. This is the compromise the original poster was talking about. These
speakers aren't "tiny" but they are small.

The real answer to the original question, in my view, has mostly to do with
the physical and appearance impracticality of having 5 or 7 full-range speakers
in a single room. As Kalman wrote, the laws of physics haven't changed, which
means the only way to get full-range sound out of a speaker is for it to be a
certain size, and that size is "too big" for most folks. There is also a law
of diminishing returns -- movie soundtracks are already artificial enough that
reproducing them *perfectly* really doesn't gain you much.

As the price of the higher-end Bose systems proves, people *are* willing to
spend big bucks for what they think will be "great" surround sound, but aren't
willing to put up with 5 or more big speakers in their house.

JGM

Thanks, everyone, for all the input. If I were going to upgrade from an
"out of the box" system, one or two speakers at a time, should I improve the
front center channel before the front surrounds? Which is the bigger bang
for the buck? I assume that any decent receiver with internal amps will
have individual output adjustments to allow for differences in sensitivy
between the various speakers. That leaves only tonal issues between the
speakers.

- Magnusfarce




"Magnusfarce" wrote in message
...
The classic configuration of two substantial speakers (and occasionally a
subwoofer) is the accepted way to achieve fidelity in pure audio systems.
For some reason, home theater systems typically feature tiny front
speakers
and centers that are not a whole lot bigger (let's forget the rears or 6.1
and 7.1 for now). These speakers would not be taken seriously in a pure
audio system. I'm obviously new to this, but even the 5.1 (speakers only)
systems I've seen offered at prices in the $1,000 range still use this
approach. For that kind of money, shouldn't we be seeing some speakers of
more substantial size that can produce the kind of sound quality as small
studio monitors? Is this HT approach accepted simply because people want
the speakers to be as unobtrusive as possible? Can someone help me
understand why HT is the way it is? Thanks.

- Magnusfarce (ready to be ripped a bit)