Looking for advice on a Home Cinema System

[MrRockliffe]

Two speakers of a similar design will have similar frequency response. And therefore making statement of driver size is valid. I've had plenty of speakers, of various sizes, budget.

Frequency response of a speaker is a fact, a satellite won't have the frequency response, lower distortion, or output of a bigger driver. Why so do you think Bose jewel are slated?

I said nothing of sound quality. Which is irrelevant.

Bose Jewels are slated because they're Bose. They're actually decent speakers, but that's because they're paired with the correct sub.

As before, frequency response isn't everything. It doesn't tell you how the system as a whole sounds.

 

[hornetstinger]

Bose Jewels are slated because they're Bose. They're actually decent speakers, but that's because they're paired with the correct sub.

As before, frequency response isn't everything. It doesn't tell you how the system as a whole sounds.

I said nothing about sound quality. That doesn't matter. I don't care if the Mass sound better, or if I have a pair of £2000 speakers high end, of the same driver size.

It's about driver size.

And yes Bose comparison is valid. How big are the drivers in the Jewels? 3" What frequency response can 3" drivers reproduce? Not much.

Are you telling me the Mass 4" drivers have lower frequency response than the 4" in my Wharfedale Diamond 9.0?

And you can use the comparison for the Mass sub as well. It's a 10" driver, that's ok but if you expect earth shaking bass and output, you won't get it. You need to size up 12", etc, or go bigger cabinet, ie 13", with 100l ported cabinet native tune 20hz.

 

[MrRockliffe]

I said nothing about sound quality. That doesn't matter. I don't care if the Mass sound better, or if I have a pair of £2000 speakers high end, of the same driver size.

It's about driver size.

And yes Bose comparison is valid. How big are the drivers in the Jewels? 3" What frequency response can 3" drivers reproduce? Not much.

Are you telling me the Mass 4" drivers have lower frequency response than the 4" in my Wharfedale Diamond 9.0?

And you can use the comparison for the Mass sub as well. It's a 10" driver, that's ok but if you expect earth shaking bass and output, you won't get it. You need to size up 12", etc, or go bigger cabinet, ie 13", with 100l ported cabinet native tune 20hz.

I think you may be completely numbers obsessed - that's okay.

I've owned, recommended and setup many AV systems over the years. I always used to be in the same boat as you - bigger is better. But it's not true, not always.

Going back to your original point, it's to do with physics. You can manipulate the perceived volume of a sound wave by changing its path from a speaker. Bose make use of this very concept, as do apple. It's called wave guide.

Subwoofers have used it for years, through ports.

An 8 Inch sub engineered correctly will produce incredibly deep, eye shaking bass. I know this, because I've tested it. It also means it can hit higher frequencies, because it's easier to move quickly.

Let's use Sonos as an example this time. Their Sonos Sub, which I happen to own, uses dual facing drivers, which I believe they say are 6 inches in size. The level of bass produced by the sub is immense. More than you would ever need in a 5.1 setup.

I've owned some of Mordant Short's stuff as well, and their subs are often 8 inches, or at least used to be when I recommended their stuff.


The monitor audio speakers, without a sub, won't produce deep sound. But as a combined system, it's great. So considering you haven't actually heard them, I'm more than happy to bet that OP would find they provide a full sound with deep and impactful bass.


As it happens, I did even advise looking into a 2.1 system as well, because as you say, having bigger drivers in the main speakers would offer a better frequency response.

But that doesn't mean they're better sounding.

 

[hornetstinger]

But that doesn't mean they're better sounding.

Yes and no.

No because doesn't mean they sound great. However, if you have a little speaker, it can't go that low, so a sub is needed, and typically subs don't handle higher frequencies that well.

Will a 2.1 sub/sat be the same as a stereo standmount system? Not always. What Hifi person would use sub/sat over a standmount? None.

More than you would ever need in a 5.1 setup.

You must have never used a decent sub. Please post proper frequency response of that Sonos sub, it vaguely says "25hz" but with no -/+ figure that is meaningless. 2x6" driver sub won't produce massively low bass.

FYI the biggest ass sub I had was a SVS PC Ultra 13.
13.5" driver, 750W amp, ported to 20hz. Well in excess of 100db, low distortion, and things crashed in the other side of the house, and the floors flexed. Can be ported to 16 or 11hz. Currently using SVS SB Ultra 13. Similar, except that is sealed box.

That is a sub....not one with 2 x 6" drivers. You're paying for the wireless feature.

If I were to spend Sonos sub money on a sub, I'd get the BK Monolith+ or BK XLS400, that would wipe the floor with your sub.

Unless you have some kind of usual system, like TL, where a little speaker can produce big sound, size matters.

Again I am not talking about sound quality.

 

[hornetstinger]

It also means it can hit higher frequencies, because it's easier to move quickly.

LOL. Why would you want a sub to produce "higher frequencies" that is what a loudspeaker is for. Higher frequnecies are easier to locate, generally you have it to 120hz or lower. Personally I think 120hz is too high, I think 80hz is about right for a movie system.

Also if you're the mindset that big = slow. Incorrect. A well designed sub is fast.

For music, 80hz crossover on the sub is too high, I'd be aiming for 60hz. So typically you want speakers to reach down to 60hz.

 

[aoaaron]

I have a monolith XL subwooffer but I do agree that a smaller sub would give me a few more options to put in the sweet spot of the room where it will deliver its best performance. whilst ATM, considering how big it is, its just in the place where it can fit.

 

[NirK]

Definitely not needed - those monitor audios are incredible sounding, even more so at that price! I recommended them to my uncle when the speakers alone were £799.

If you wanted to go 2.1 straight off, look into some of the older Kef Q series. Great value for money at the moment as they new series had pushed the price of old, yet still great sounding, stuff.

Well, bigger speakers are a lot better really, even the absolute best speakers with 3-4" drivers, still have 3-4" drivers and a small enclosure, so they are going to not have much lower midrange or bass, there is nothing you can do about that other than get bigger speakers, so speakers with a big enclosure and 6.5" drivers are better.

 

[NirK]

I would get 2.1 with an AV receiver, the upgrade the rest as possible. Instead of getting a surround sound kit with small speakers, even 2 proper standmount speakers would be pretty much better than 5.1 with small speakers IMO, you can get 2 good fronts and then add the rest later. For example I have 2.1 with stereo amp, and if I want to go surround sound, which I would at some point, I need to replace the amp now, or I could keep the amp and use it for the 2 fronts with an AV receiver for the middle and rears etc.

But for example now I have 2 good standmount speakers and a sub, I would rather have this than a 5.1 setup with tiny speakers, but then I would rather have 5.1/7.1 with good speakers.