In wall vs regular speakers?

My opinion is that in-wall speakers are a way to address convenience/space/cosmetic issues. You will always get better results with a standard cabinet speaker.

Thanks everyone I think I will keep the regular speakers, I take it people use in wall to save space, in my case I think I have enough room, but will know for sure when I actually move in.

I’ve done it both ways in the past , a discrete "B" 7.1 system for multi-channel and music HT rig with inwall or inwall speakers , and Also a stand-alone 2 channel "A" system for music

the in-wall or on- wall speaker approach:
it depends on
(1) the performance capabilities and build quality of the HT speaker selected and
(2) choosing what is your primary goal/use : multi-channel HT or top performance 2-channel.
the compromises on the latter can be significant in a one-size-fits-all approach.

having owned Martin Logan’s for the HT portion above in a stand-alone discrete kit, their in-walls such as their VOYAGE or PASSAGE models are worthy contenders for any HT system.

You get get what you pay for. These are not your POS cheap run-of-the-mill Chi-fi stuff ’em in gear .I highlight that for a HT system, these are contenders and not pretenders

http://www.martinlogan.com/products/voyage

I ended up going with a "full speaker " 7.1 system. Because I wanted to simplify my mancave, I utilized the pass-through feature on my 2-channel integrated amp, added 5.1 surround same-brand speakers as matched brands to the LF and RF "main" hi-end 2-channel, added separate hi-end power amps and a standalone 7.1AV preamp/ processor to flesh out the end system for both 2-channel and HT purposes.

Now their are no compromises for 2-channel music vs multi-channel uses.

takeaway: top in-walls (not cheap ones) can be impressive for the artificial multi-channel audio approach and may easily match or better cheap box speakers but they cannot compete with any high-end 2-channel "box" speakers for audio reproduction ..... that is your compromise quotient.

I agree with some of the other posters but allow me to share my experience:  
I have a tower 2.1/5.1system consisting of B&W 802's, HTM-1 center channel and CWM-DS8 in-wall surrounds, and ASW-800 subwoofer.  Another 5.1 system consisting of Klipsch R-5800-W (L,C,R), R-5650-S in-walls, and RT-12D subwoofer.  Also B&W CWM-8180's in-walls in a second zone for two channel only.

With the two systems for 5.1, I can honestly say that I could easily be satisfied with either (don't tell my wife) on 5.1 material.  Of course with two-channel the 802's are in another stratosphere.  But in both systems the quality of amp/pre-amp, or receiver approach plays a huge role in bringing out solid 2-channel performance.  I'd say in both cases separates is the way to go, but in the 5.1 Klipsch system using a quality receiver is quite adequate.

With the B&W 8180 two-channel system using a Vincent SV-236-MK2 intergrated I would say aspects of depth and presence are there... Just not at the level of the 802's, but very satisfying.  Coincidently before the 8180's were installed I used Klipsch R-5800-W's with very close results.

Sorry I guess I should have specified that the question was for the surround and back speakers only as I already have a stereo setup that I will be implementing with the HT, thats what I currently have, both receiver and pre amp are connected to the same amp although be it through the same pre amp, my pre does not have a pass through so I just set it to 12 when ever i switch to HT input.

So the system will be used for both stereo and ht, as far as my setup is concerned I am very happy with my front, I have Rethm Saadhanas for mains and Audiozen pre and amp and Lumin T1 for digital.  For HT i am using Marantz, currently my surrounds are paradigm v7s, my ceiling will be monitor audio CT 280. Its the surrounds that I was thinking of changing mainly for aesthetics but I believe the general thought is that in walls are worse than regular speakers, if I understand correctly.