2. home-theater
  3. 1033868227

Full range rear speakers

I am interested in others opinions who have tried HT setups with rear full range speakers verses "book shelf" speakers.

All direct radiating speakers. Was the extra money worth the over all effect, i.e.. more presence in the rear, or just roll the small speakers lows off to the subs and call it even?

Thanks
Marty
marty9876
sean
6,231 posts
 
George, i agree that there are times when "full range" does increase the effects and enjoyment. However, i think that "full range" is a relative thing. If a speaker can do 50 Hz with reasonable authority and roll off below that, i think that it would be more than sufficient for use as a rear channel speaker.

To me, "full range" means something that can do at least down into the low to mid 30 Hz range ( preferably into the 20's ) without straining. As such, i'm not recommending a "tiny" speaker for the rears but something that is reasonably efficient and goes "reasonably low". You don't necessarily need something that is "titanic" in terms of size or low frequency response. That is why i said that i would have went with something a little more reasonable i.e. a box that did not weigh 100+ lbs and need a horsepower worth of power to make it thunder.

For the record, my HT system has six 12's, four 10's and six 8's in it and is powered by 6000+ watts. As such, my point of view may be sligthly different than that of someone else with a different installation. Sean
>
subaruguru
1,376 posts
 
Hi. I just demoed a 1/2 dozen rear surround full-range wall-mountable speakers, and was shocked that most of them, while sounding quite nice in free-space, sounded thick, muffled, and awry once boundary-compensation filled them in on the wall! The PSB and JM Labs especially had their nice signatures ruined by wall-mounting...yet they're geometry and intent is clearly that of wall-mounting! How ridiculous. Finally I stumbled upon the Boston Acoustics VR-MX rear surrounds, and was delighted...especially after chatiing with their designer, who heartily reinforced that he "of course compensated in the crossover and bass alignment" for boundary-loading. Sheesh!
So be VERY careful to audition your favorites up on the wall!
marty9876 OP
120 posts
 
Thanks for the input. I guess it's like insurance, you don't often need it, but when you do it's great.

Sean, yea our "full range" idea is different. My is basically to about 45hz which seems to be the basic industry slandered. I would guess, guess, that most sub $5000 retail pair speakers really don't do much below 35hz.

My specifics are trying to decided between the new Meadowlark Osprey's (fuller range) and the smaller 2-way Swifts(6" woofer?) and such. Really I a debating cheaper speakers and a cable upgrade, or dump the money into speakers. Cables can wait.

Rear speaker placement, I really don't hope for much. I have been trying to nail down the front 3 and let the rears fall where they may. A sonically poor, i.e. too close to the wall, placement is the best I am hoping for.

Thanks
Marty
fs_audio
148 posts
 
This is a good thread and brings up a long debated topic: Full-range in the rear or not? My opinion is that if you can do it (meaning, afford it), then full-range in ALL channels is the best solution and the most enjoyable. One of the problems that can occur, if running the rear as "small" and using a sub to output LF, is the issue of LF directionality. Meaning, if you have let's say restricted LF rear speakers, and you set them up to crossover at 80Hz (kind of the standard), then it is VERY likely that LF notes intended to be perceived as occuring in the rear will in fact seem as though they are coming from the front. Yes, I know LF is supposed to be non-directional (depending on frequency of course), but what most folks seem to forget is that this is in an ideal world. In the real world, you will have certain objects vibrate in your room at given resonance frequencies which even though not coming directly from the sub itself (shouldn't be a problem in a well designed sub), will cause serious directionality issues. This is in addition to notes above ~25Hz that can be localized in and of themselves. So, what the heck am I saying? I don't know, I forgot ;-) Seriously, if you can run full-range all around do it. At the least, run two subs, one in the rear and one in the front.

Marty...The Ospreys would be overkill for rears unless you really have the extra money lying around. The Swifts TRULY do go down to 35Hz, so you wouldn't get the lowest notes in the rear, but it should be sufficient. In addition, the Swifts are front-ported, so you can put them right up against a wall (disclaimer: I am a dealer for Meadowlark).

Best Regards...Mike - Father & Son Audio
marty9876 OP
120 posts
 
Mike,

A dealer saying something would be an overkill, this must be a first. But then again, I would say most of us have warped perception of what an over kill is. At least I do.

The one thing I do not like about the Swifts is the tweeter height. They are truly a great speaker, I have a pair in my room as demos. I was very impressed with the sound.

With the Swifts, and the Kestrels and Shearwaters too basically, the tweeter height is just 4-6 inches too low for me. I could prop them up on blocks or something, I don't know I still might. The are cheaper.

The biggest down side, they(all three) looks like toys to me. I mean, matchsticks.... It is all relative, with a 7ch Sim Titan amp sitting on a lone amp stand in the room, most things look small. I am way too American, bigger is better mentality.

Thanks
Marty
More to discover