Re: Surround Speaker Choice
The 340's would be fine. You could also go with the HTM200's - these aren't ported so a bit more flexible in placement (eg could flush mount to a wall).
Re: Surround Speaker Choice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toofy
Looking for some advice on Surround speaker choices.
I currently have 2 Sierra 2EX's (mains), Polk S35 (center), and 1 Monolith 10inch THX subwoofer all powered by a Yamaha Rx V2085. I'm more into music but now starting to get more into home theatre/movies.
I currently love my Sierra 2EX's and was wondering if it is necessary that I should buy another 2 Sierra 2EX's for the right and left surrounds or would the much cheaper 340 CMT's(that I've heard are excellent for the price) do just as good a job for HT?
I've heard that surround speakers generally don't need to be as articulate as the mains. I'm still very new to the HT game, so any info is much appreciated.
How far away are you sitting from your surrounds? If you are 10 to 12 feet or less, I see no reason why you need the CMT 340s. I would wall mount a pair of HTM 200s or if wall mounting is not an option, put some CMT 170s on speaker stands. If you wanted the Raal ribbon tweeter, then go with the Lunas or Duo (again based on how far away the speakers are). If you could only put the speakers on stands, then I could see the case for the Sierra 2 EXs.
Re: Surround Speaker Choice
Agree with the above comments for home theater if you also plan on sticking with 2 channel music. But if you might expand your listening to include 5.1 or Atmos music recordings (which are limited) or allowing the AVR to spread 2 channel music across all speakers (I can hear the purists gasp), you may want to consider 2EXs all around. But that's a big jump in price for limited application so definitely consider your intended usage.
Re: Surround Speaker Choice
Warning: long.
There are multiple schools of thought on the importance of speaker matching in HT.
School #1, the purist position, espoused by THX and many of the people who originally designed surround sound, is that all five (non-subwoofer) speakers in 5.1 should be identical. It's the only way to be sure that when things pan from speaker to speaker that everything still sounds right. For example, all five speakers should be S2-EXs.
School #2 is that they don't all need to be identical, but they should at least be timbre-matched. Relatively small differences in efficiency and such between different speakers from the same line are pretty easy to compensate for with small changes in volume at different speakers, and modern HT processors that use room correction do this automatically anyway. For example, RAAL Towers for mains, RAAL Horizon center, and Lunas for surrounds.
School #3 is that they don't all need to be timbre-matched but they all have to have similar frequency response. If you have darker speakers in one position, you have to have darker speakers in all positions. This gives you a lot more flexibility in choosing brands/designs, since anything reasonably close will be fine, you probably won't be able to tell the difference anyway. For example, RAAL S2-EX mains, CMT-340 center, some good neutral surrounds from someone else.
School #4 is that it doesn't really matter—what's coming out of the surround channels is mostly just fill-in effects anyway, so as long as you have speakers, no worries. Example: CBM-170 mains, Polk CS10 center, NHT SuperZero surrounds.
So, which school is right?
Honestly I think it depends a lot on what you're listening to and how it's mixed. Advocates of schools 3&4 are correct that that some material, particularly movies/TV that don't emphasize sound, the surrounds aren't doing a lot. Advocates of positions 1&2 point out that there is material that really aggressively uses the surrounds and you pay a real penalty in the immersion experience in those cases when there's a mismatch.
I recently upgraded from a School 2 system to something very close to a School 1 system (the five aren't identical, but 3 of them are and the surrounds are very close to the front 3) and for stuff that really heavily uses all five channels (e.g., The Dark Side of the Moon in 5.1, some really well-mixed movies and even TV), it makes a difference.
Pairing something like HTM-200s with Ascend RAALs is kind of a 2.5 position. They're not perfectly timbre-matched but they're also more than just "similar frequency response." They are designed to go together and while they won't give you the full School 2 experience, it'll be pretty close.
It's also a function of your room/budget and what you listen to. Not everyone can actually put 5 exactly-matching speakers in their room, especially towers. If you listen to a lot of two-channel music, there's a real argument for sinking more money into the LR mains than into the other three speakers. If you listen to very little two-channel music but do watch a lot of movies/TV that are dialogue-oriented, maybe a little extra in the center channel makes sense. YMMV.
So, will it overall sound better if you get S2-EXs for surrounds? Yes. Is it enough better to justify the additional expense? Depending on what you listen to, it might not be. Since you have a sub, Lunas are going to do the job almost as well as 2EXs and are cheaper and easier to place.
If you're not going to perfectly timbre-match, there's not going to be enough difference between the 340s and the 200s for it to matter much. I keep saying it, but the 200s are really great speakers (especially for the money) if you have a subwoofer, which you do. They're also smaller and easy to place than the 340s.
So, I'd say you have four reasonable options:
* The School 3 (maybe 3.5; I'm not sure how well the Polk matches the 2EXs): just get a pair of HTM-200s. Con: still not a great match all the way around, but if you're living with the Polk center anyway it's probably not a big deal to you. Pro: super cost-efficient.
* The School 2.5: get a pair of 200s and replace your center with a RAAL-based center (probably a Duo). Con: more expensive than the first one. Pros: still cheaper than a new pair of EXs, definitely better sound than the School 3 option.
* The School 2: get a Duo center and Lunas for surrounds. Con: a couple hundred more than a pair of new EXs. Pros: beautiful timbre-matching (and appearance-matching; high SAF) all the way around.
* The School 1: get three EXs, one center and three surrounds. Con: spendy. Pro: perfect matching all the way around, as the purists intended it to be.
If I'd already budgeted for a pair of EXs then the S2.5 and S2 options are where I'd go—do you want to be a few bills under-budge or a few bills over-budget?
Re: Surround Speaker Choice
In full transparency, I lean toward #1 philosophically but fall into #2 in practice. I have RAAL Towers with low profile Horizon center and 2EX surrounds. Some would certainly consider this to be overkill but I absolutely love it! Zero regrets. I also found the upgrade from S2 to S2EX was very worthwhile even for surrounds (especially with surround music but also with HT). That said, everyone has to reconcile their own budget and needs against the point of diminishing returns.
Re: Surround Speaker Choice
In my opinion it is somewhere in the middle of these schools, but application dependent. If movies and TV are a priority, then stick with the same brand for the main 5 speakers. However the front three being from the same line. For example, if you go with Sierra towers with the Raal ribbon tweeter for the mains, then opt for the Horizon with the Raal ribbon tweeter for the center. For the surrounds, the HTM 200s would probably be fine though.
If music is the priority, then I see a case for a closer match with the surrounds. Like say the Lunas, Duos, or if the space is large enough to allow for speakers stands Sierra 2S/2EXs.
I think that towers for surrounds is money not well spent. For one thing, it doubles the cost (in the Sierra line) and if doesnt allow for the best placement. If there are several people listening on a couch, the surrounds need to be elevated so that the person in the middle doesnt have the sound blocked by the people on either side of them. How do you practically elevate a tower speaker and possibly tilt it towards the center seat, since the reliving tweeters have narrow vertical dispersion. Yes it is possible, but it will look a little crazy and will take some effort and additional cost that isnt likely necessary. Plus Im not sure if the difference will be all that noticeable.
Ideally we want a subwoofer (Or better yet multiple subwoofers) in the mix. This is to offload the demanding bass requirements from movies to more capable speakers. But also to get much more even bass response in one seat or multiple seats. Allowing us to move around a subwoofer or multiple subwoofers will give much better bass performance. This makes the case for towers as surrounds a lot less necessary. I could see the need for tower speakers (compact ones like the Horizon or CMT 340s) in very large rooms or if the person listens at reference volume. Again application dependent.
