PDA

View Full Version : Two Approaches - Pros and Cons



DougMac
03-14-2008, 05:34 AM
I'm building a dedicated HT. The room will be 16x18x9. I plan to use a sub (leaning towards SVS). Use will probably be 60/40 movies/music. Space and WAF is not a problem. Listening position will be at what is considered optimum front/back ratio and I have no restraints on speaker placement, therefore they will be at recommended positions.

My original thoughts were to use 340's across the front with 170's as surrounds. Then I read a post by Dave on a forum discussing the 200's. He said essentially the two 4" mid woofers in the 200's has the same area as the one woofer in the 170's. He discussed the advantages the two smaller woofers bring to high mids and that the xover to the tweeter is set higher, which helps keep the tweeter from working so hard with the lower range of its response. He also discussed the quickness in mids the 200's two woofers bring.

That got me thinking about another approach. I'd like some thoughts on the differences in these two systems, which are ~$350 apart, which is doable.

System A: 340's across the front, 4 170's for surrounds.

System B: Sierras across the front, 4 200's for surrounds.

Would one system be better for HT? for music?

Would the advantages of the Sierras over the 340's (arguably smoother response, more detail, better bass) offset the the slight loss in bass response of the 200's vs the 170's? Since I'll be using a good musical sub, would the arguably better midrange of the 200's give it an advantage over the 170's in this setup?

Have I opened a can of worms?

Of course, I'd love to do all Sierras, but I have to live in the real world (plus I'm a Scot).

Doug

drewface
03-14-2008, 06:43 AM
from what i understand, this choice would probably come down to whether you listen to music in stereo or in surround. (sacd type stuff with 5.1 mixes) if you go with stereo for music, System B, i would think, would be the way you'd want to go. htm-200s work great as surround speakers for home theatre, plus you get the added benefit of being able to mount them directly against a wall, or even in the wall if you want to go that route. also, the Sierras would arguably offer you a more refined sound over the 340s when listening to stereo music.

on the other hand, if you listen to a lot of multi-channel music, System A may be better for you. the 170s have an edge over the 200s when it comes to musical performance, and the 340s, while not quite to the level of the sierras, are definitely no slouches for music or home theatre. also, this package will have more of a physical presence in the room as all the speakers are larger than their corresponding speakers in System B.

for home theatre, i'd guess the two systems would be very similar in performance. with the front soundstage of the sierras having a slight edge over the 340s in certain situations

robruffo
04-06-2008, 11:03 AM
Go for the Sierras up front. They really do make a HUGE difference. surround quality differenec between 200HTM and 170 will be subtle, as surround sound content is usually not all that speaker-challenging - often it is barely there. Sierra difference from 340 fronts is not subtle, and will affect the quality of sound in ALL situations, not just 5.1.

I would even suggest a better solution:

Only one 170 pair as surrounds, 3 Sierras in front. Wait until later to add extra surround channels.

Not that much material is yet in 7.1 natively (or even 6.1) and matrixed back channels tend to decay overall sound quality (too much processing) on most receivers.

Another solution is to use an HTM 200 center channel as a single back, with 170 CBMs as L-R surround channels. Well positioned, it does work (does not make back sound seem to come from the front).

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

DougMac
04-06-2008, 12:58 PM
Go for the Sierras up front.
Not that much material is yet in 7.1 natively (or even 6.1) and matrixed back channels tend to decay overall sound quality (too much processing) on most receivers.

Rob,
Thanks for your input! Since my original post, a few things have happened. I've purchased a used pair of HTM 200's, with which I'm well pleased. 170's have gone on sale.

Your recommendation of Sierra's has been echoed by many. The current plan is to go with Sierra's LCR and 170's surround. My receiver is 7.1, so I might go ahead and fly the 200's in the back.

I don't swap out speakers often. Going with the Sierra's for a little extra money makes sense. Strike while the iron is hot.

Doug

robruffo
04-06-2008, 01:08 PM
Rob,
Thanks for your input! Since my original post, a few things have happened. I've purchased a used pair of HTM 200's, with which I'm well pleased. 170's have gone on sale.

Your recommendation of Sierra's has been echoed by many. The current plan is to go with Sierra's LCR and 170's surround. My receiver is 7.1, so I might go ahead and fly the 200's in the back.

I don't swap out speakers often. Going with the Sierra's for a little extra money makes sense. Strike while the iron is hot.

Doug

I find my Sierras have cured my upgradisitis completely. Just that, IMO, is worth something. :D I finally no longer wonder if things would be better with just one more upgrade - I can actually just relax and enjoy. Although, come to think of it, I've been looking at those new Epik subs recently and... :eek: