5.1 vs 2.1 for the same $? ($3-$4k)

[nandrzej]

I have two rigs, one for stereo and one for HT. I picked up the entry level Marantz as I was tired of volume riding because the centre channel was poorly represented on the TV and connected some old Dynaudios to it in a 2.1 config. It transformed the viewing experience and actually did pretty convincing two channel becoming the go to system for the family. I later added some rears and a centre and whilst it’s better I think the advice to pick up two good speakers for your rig is sound and will fit both your use cases.

 

Cheers. Nick

[Ray H]

Could go 3.1 for now, then get surrounds later, I don’t know how the Denon would go driving these but they are a nice speaker;

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Ray H

[Ritero]

Thanks all. I can't quite explain why but for some reason I'm really keen on some nice bookshelf speakers on stands over floorstanding. Aesthetics perhaps. 

[andye2004]

7 minutes ago, Ray H said:

Could go 3.1 for now, then get surrounds later, I don’t know how the Denon would go driving these but they are a nice speaker;

 

 

 

Thanks for the plug, in the interest of transparency I'd suggest a read of my follow-up post re a small issue with tweeter and speaker dome on the same speaker.

 

Also, I have been driving these with a Cambridge Audio Azure 551R to the centre and using pre-out to an Arcam Alpha 9 Integrated / Alpha 9P to bi-amp the main front left and right. In this setup (to my ears anyway) they are fantastic. Not really sure how they would perform when not bi-amped as I've never run them in a setup like that.

[Ruffter]

23 minutes ago, Ritero said:

Thanks all. I can't quite explain why but for some reason I'm really keen on some nice bookshelf speakers on stands over floorstanding. Aesthetics perhaps. 

$3k will get you some very nice speakers. Also factor in good stands, which will likely set you back $300-$500.

[audiofeline]

Given that 50% of your listening is music, get good quality stereo speakers, don't dilute your quality - more does not mean better!

 

I have (what I consider to be a good) 2.0 system, with music as my priority.  It shares the room with the TV, so I will run the TV/DVD/BluRay audio through the stereo for movies and music video.  Given my stereo system has a good frequency response, good dynamics, and good imaging, I've never felt the need to go to multi-speakers.  The good two-channel sound gives movies plenty of imaging, depth, drama and volume; for my use I don't need anything more. 

 

[tma]

If my room was big enough I would be spending the $3K on surround. It does make a difference especially with music recorded for the format (for instance some of Bis' classical recordings). Read Floyd Toole's book--he is a huge advocate. Sadly I don't have enough space so am sticking with bookshelves

[Ritero]

Wow! Really loving the differences of opinions here. It is a very interesting exercise seeing what different people value. 

 

In the spaces of 2 posts (above) we have an advocate for 2.0 and an advocate for 5.1. I'm not being facetious - I think this is great, genuinely.

 

The conclusion I'm coming to is there is no right answer. It's down to preference. It's made me do a lot of thinking, and I think where SQ is concerned I value music above HT. So while my usage may be 50/50, I'd prefer to get music right at the expense of HT than vice versa. 

[Snoopy8]

6 hours ago, Ritero said:

The conclusion I'm coming to is there is no right answer. It's down to preference. It's made me do a lot of thinking, and I think where SQ is concerned I value music above HT. So while my usage may be 50/50, I'd prefer to get music right at the expense of HT than vice versa. 

 There are many answers and it is up to you.

 

Now that you have said that music SQ is the priority, I will change my previous suggestion.  An AVR is not designed for music but it is a convenient 1 box solution.  With music being the priority, you should consider getting the following, but requires additional budget and maybe space:

1. Separate music system with dedicated speakers.  
2. Replace with a more "musical" AVR brand e.g. Marantz, Anthem, Arcam, NAD.  Ideally, get an AVR with good room correction for music i.e. Anthem Room Correction or Dirac Live (Arcam, NAD).  It does make a difference for music
3. Replace AVR with stereo integrated amp and use it for both music & HT
4. Get best of both worlds 
   

Again, no one right answer...

[tma]

"Results of subjective comparisons in which listeners judged the degree of impairment in perceived envelopment (LEV) when an array of a smaller number of loudspeakers attempted to imitate the performance of a circular array of 24 loudspeakers. Adapted from the data in Hiyama et al., 2002."

 

Edit: I would be looking into the Revel M16 for the fronts ($1700/pair) and Revel C25 ($1200) for the centre, and Polk S10 for the back ($350/pair). This leaves $750 for a subwoofer and AVR (if you had $4K to spend). This would be a really nice system. Alternately, if you want to spend less, the ELAC Debut 2.0 series is excellent. Denon AVR-4306 is a good choice as AVR, ~$350 used

 

I am deeply suspicious of the idea that a modern AVR and stereo amplifier could be distinguished in blind tests. Measurements are useless unless we give them a psychoacoustic grounding. What level of noise can we hear?

Edited October 23, 2020 by tma
spelling

[aussievintage]

3 minutes ago, tma said:

"Results of subjective comparisons in which listeners judged the degree of impairment in perceived envelopment (LEV) when an array of a smaller number of loudspeakers attempted to imitate the performance of a circular array of 24 loudspeakers. Adapted from the data in Hiyama et al., 2002."

 

Very interesting.  So, if I am reading it correctly,  (b) illustrates the reason soundbars work as well as they do?  One of the closest results to ideal 24 speakers in a circle (which scores 0), and all the speakers out in front of the subject.

[tma]

5 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

Very interesting.  So, if I am reading it correctly,  (b) illustrates the reason soundbars work as well as they do?  One of the closest results to ideal 24 speakers in a circle (which scores 0), and all the speakers out in front of the subject.

Yes. From a psychoacoustics POV, soundbars have the potential to be great. In real life the implementation has been poor, as soundbars have been marketed to the less-audio conscious crowd, thus there's not been a great emphasis on quality (and so hifi lovers become ever more entrenched against soundbars). Sennheiser is leading the way with their new Ambeo. Probably is the future of home theatre

 

Some notes on the image above, from Toole's book:

• "Two-channel stereo does not fare well (a), and neither does the “quad” arrangement (f), which performed very similarly, strongly confirming the results of Tohyama and Suzuki.
• Symmetrical front-back arrays, it seems, contribute nothing to envelopment but only add two more locations for special-effects sounds in movies and voices or instruments in music.
• A center-rear loudspeaker is worse (g).
• All combinations of a pair of loudspeakers at ±30° and another pair of loudspeakers at angles from ±60° to ±135° perform superbly (b), (c), (d), and (e). Avoid ±150° (f), or whatever angle identifies the spread of the front loudspeakers.
• Four loudspeakers behind the listener (h) do not perform as well as four in front, at the same reflected angles (b).
• The five-channel arrangement described in ITU-R BS.775-2, shown in (i), performed about as well as any other configuration."
   

Edited October 24, 2020 by tma
info

[aussievintage]

46 minutes ago, tma said:

 

• Symmetrical front-back arrays, it seems, contribute nothing to envelopment but only add two more locations for special-effects sounds in movies and voices or instruments in music.
• All combinations of a pair of loudspeakers at ±30° and another pair of loudspeakers at angles from ±60° to ±135° perform superbly (b), (c), (d), and (e). Avoid ±150° (f), or whatever angle identifies the spread of the front loudspeakers.

 

This is good confirmation.   A long soundbar, aided by side reflections, can easily put the sound at these angles,  and betters what I used to hear with a 5.1 system with a couple of rear speakers behind me (and even those worked better out to the sides)

 

 

53 minutes ago, tma said:

In real life the implementation has been poor, as soundbars have been marketed to the less-audio conscious crowd,

I found I had to go up to the higher end of the usual price bracket to get decent "hifi" sound, yes.

 

 

52 minutes ago, tma said:

Sennheiser is leading the way with their new Ambeo. Probably is the future of home theatre

That's an expensive soundbar indeed.   Mine is only about half that cost.

[Ritero]

Well I went in to demo some KEF R3 today but my local KEF dealer doesn't stock the R series, so we had a look at some Sonus Faber Sonetto I and Sonetto II instead, as well as the KEF LS50s. 

 

It was a brief demo, but wow, those Sonus Fabers were really lovely. Both speakers were substantially better than the LS50s which seem to review so well. The Sonetto IIs were a bit larger and provided a more 'full' sound, though to my ears they were very similar to the Sonetto I. The SF were gorgeous too, incredible quality and detailing. 

[tma]

1 hour ago, Ritero said:

Well I went in to demo some KEF R3 today but my local KEF dealer doesn't stock the R series, so we had a look at some Sonus Faber Sonetto I and Sonetto II instead, as well as the KEF LS50s. 

 

It was a brief demo, but wow, those Sonus Fabers were really lovely. Both speakers were substantially better than the LS50s which seem to review so well. The Sonetto IIs were a bit larger and provided a more 'full' sound, though to my ears they were very similar to the Sonetto I. The SF were gorgeous too, incredible quality and detailing. 

 

Sonetto II has great polars

[Ritero]

They sure sounded fantastic to my inexperienced ears. Anyone in Adelaide have a set of R3s they'd be willing to let me demo? I would really love to hear some now.

[Soundfever]

14 hours ago, Snoopy8 said:

 There are many answers and it is up to you.

 

Now that you have said that music SQ is the priority, I will change my previous suggestion.  An AVR is not designed for music but it is a convenient 1 box solution.  With music being the priority, you should consider getting the following, but requires additional budget and maybe space:

1. Separate music system with dedicated speakers.  
2. Replace with a more "musical" AVR brand e.g. Marantz, Anthem, Arcam, NAD.  Ideally, get an AVR with good room correction for music i.e. Anthem Room Correction or Dirac Live (Arcam, NAD).  It does make a difference for music
3. Replace AVR with stereo integrated amp and use it for both music & HT
4. Get best of both worlds 
   

Again, no one right answer...

Great suggestion, I have very similar setup, the different are I use a pair of Rel T9i Hi input for music and LFE input for HT + Rel 1508 + SVS PB2000

[Soundfever]

2 hours ago, Ritero said:

Well I went in to demo some KEF R3 today but my local KEF dealer doesn't stock the R series, so we had a look at some Sonus Faber Sonetto I and Sonetto II instead, as well as the KEF LS50s. 

 

It was a brief demo, but wow, those Sonus Fabers were really lovely. Both speakers were substantially better than the LS50s which seem to review so well. The Sonetto IIs were a bit larger and provided a more 'full' sound, though to my ears they were very similar to the Sonetto I. The SF were gorgeous too, incredible quality and detailing. 

Depending on what is driving the LS50, they are demanding speakers and  have a lean clean sound. 

 

I had a pair of R300 paired with a SVS PB2000 in a smaller room for music.  I think they blend okay but the PB2000 is little slow to keep up with the R300 because it is ported, however, the extension is nice. I now pair them with a Rel T9i. I think the SB2000 will give a better punch and speed compared to the PB2000 so it will be a good match either R300 or R3. The KEF R will give you more bass and warmth in comparison to the LS50. If you like the Kef R3 but budget is a concern then consider the R300. 

 

Start with the Kef R3 + SB2000 + Denon. If budget permits, get a nice center speaker for HT and 2 cheap speakers for the surrounds. 

[Ritero]

33 minutes ago, Soundfever said:

Depending on what is driving the LS50, they are demanding speakers and  have a lean clean sound. 

 

I had a pair of R300 paired with a SVS PB2000 in a smaller room for music.  I think they blend okay but the PB2000 is little slow to keep up with the R300 because it is ported, however, the extension is nice. I now pair them with a Rel T9i. I think the SB2000 will give a better punch and speed compared to the PB2000 so it will be a good match either R300 or R3. The KEF R will give you more bass and warmth in comparison to the LS50. If you like the Kef R3 but budget is a concern then consider the R300. 

 

Start with the Kef R3 + SB2000 + Denon. If budget permits, get a nice center speaker for HT and 2 cheap speakers for the surrounds. 

I believe they were being driven by a Marantz NR1200 - a stereo AV receiver. All speakers I demo'd were being driven by the same system.

[Soundfever]

Haven't experienced the LS50 with the NR1200, have paired it with a Marantz PM7004, SR5003, Denon x1000, Nuforce STA200, they all sounds okay with PM7004 the best out of them all. The PM7004 brings a bit of warmth to the lean and clean LS50. I eventually paired it with a Roksan Caspian M2, thats when magic happens. The LS50 demands alot on the power amp. The R3/300 is more forgiving, different character speaker and you will get away with a lesser amp. Some speakers will go better with certain amp and vice versa, careful that the shop is not using a particular combination to sell you their preferred speaker or amp. 

 

At the end of the day, audition your short list and go with what you like. Remember, the equipment and environment in the shop are different to your home and will/might sound different. 

[Ritero]

1 hour ago, Soundfever said:

Haven't experienced the LS50 with the NR1200, have paired it with a Marantz PM7004, SR5003, Denon x1000, Nuforce STA200, they all sounds okay with PM7004 the best out of them all. The PM7004 brings a bit of warmth to the lean and clean LS50. I eventually paired it with a Roksan Caspian M2, thats when magic happens. The LS50 demands alot on the power amp. The R3/300 is more forgiving, different character speaker and you will get away with a lesser amp. Some speakers will go better with certain amp and vice versa, careful that the shop is not using a particular combination to sell you their preferred speaker or amp. 

 

At the end of the day, audition your short list and go with what you like. Remember, the equipment and environment in the shop are different to your home and will/might sound different. 

They certainly preferred the sonus Faber stuff over KEF. However I don't think there was anything nefarious in it - the SF Sonetto I were already paired to the Marantz when I got there, they simply demoed them on that system then hooked up the LS50s and Sonetto IIs at my request.

 

The amp talk I'll admit is a bit of gibberish to me I understand the power bit (broadly) and that different amps make things sound different.  That different speakers have different sensitivities and broadly that the higher the dB sensitivity rating the less power you need to drive the speaker (I think).  But not really anything about any particular amps. 

[Snoopy8]

12 hours ago, Ritero said:

They sure sounded fantastic to my inexperienced ears. Anyone in Adelaide have a set of R3s they'd be willing to let me demo? I would really love to hear some now.

Inexperience is not relevant! 

 

1 hour ago, Soundfever said:

At the end of the day, audition your short list and go with what you like.

The important thing is to use your ears and go with what sounds good.

[Soundfever]

@Snoopy8Yes, that’s what I mean. 
 

@RiteroDoing a bit of consolidation under the direction of my CFO and clear out some big bills. I will be listing a pair of near new Kef R300 in black soon, PM me if you have decided to go that path. 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Soundfever

[Soundfever]

Like @Snoopy8said above, go with your ears. Ask the shop to demo your short listed speakers to its best. They should know how to match them, try a few shops to experience different setups and combinations etc. 

 

Amps and speakers are like body and glasses. They might still fit but a basic glass in a full frame body won’t give you the sharpest image. Like wise if you a using a F4 glass for a wildlife trip then I might be not fast enough. Each amp and speaker has its own sound characteristic, matching them can be fun and depending on many factors. The most expensive might not be the best. Most importantly of all is what sound character that you prefer and enjoys. The best camera is the one you have with you. 

[Ritero]

Thanks both. The challenge in Adelaide is getting hold of my shortlisted speakers to demo. There are no KEF R3s at dealers here - only two KEF dealers and neither have them in stock.