Full range rear speakers

So in the end what would sound better? "Fuller" range Ospreys, or the Swallows with a sub? I have an unused sub, HSU VFT-2, just sitting around. I have always thought running the speaker high level lines into the sub and using its crossover, or low level signal single ended into the sub, but I always thought that was the "cheaper" and lower quality way of doing things.

I am so confused, by this whole bass issue. I'll just take Sean's approach and have two/four/six of everything..:) I do have stereo subs, and I am wondering why. With all "large" speakers on the cross over settings it kinda takes the fun out of the right left deal. But the localization and response issues are still very valid reasons for stereo subs.

Sim stuff, I have all three. It sucks.... Love hate deal. It is very quirky and can be hard to use at times. The 7ch amp is so much bigger than the 5ch and currently I am only using 5 channels. I guess I should buy the rear center, not like much information comes from it thou. I have been planning on getting the Petrel(what ever small center is called).

Thanks for the input. I just would like to do things right.

Marty

Marty,

Depends on what the application will be. If you are going to listen to a lot of multichannel music, then you might want the higher quality bass that the Osprey will provide, over the HSU (great sub by the way, bass just won't be as fast and musical as the Osprey). If on the other hand you will be watching more movies than multichannel music, save some money and go with the HSU and the Swallows.

One last thought to really get you confused, have you considered the Meadowlark Owl Bipole/Dipole to use as the surround channels?

FYI...The Meadowlark center channel that sonically matches the Swift/Osprey/Swallow is called the Swan...You aren't the only one that gets confused by all of these bird names by the way ;-)

Best Regards...Mike - Father & Son Audio

In multi-poop don't the rears basically do the same thing? Recreate the ambiance of the venue? I have not gotten into mulitchannel music, which might cause me to be biased.

Why do people say that multichannel music line? To me a speaker should reproduce what ever is asked of it, in a similar fashion. I know this is a generalization, and therefore why are some speakers more "musical" than others, which some clearly are. I know an explosion is not "musical" but it is still comprised of basic wave formations. I know science can not spit ot a formula for what is "musical" and so hands on experience is all one can do.

Di/Bi poles, I just don't want to mess with these. It is just a decision I have made, wise or unwise, who knows.

Thanks
Marty

"Multi-poop", that is a good one ;-) Haven't heard it stated that way before, ROFLMAO

All I was saying was that the bass of the Osprey will be more musical simply because it was designed to be so (as compared to the HSU).

In a sense you are correct, that the rears are only for re-creation of the venue. However, this is not always the case as some recordings do have instrument/voice sent to the rear channels (whether this is a good or bad thing is a topic for another thread ;-] )

Your questions are good ones, but this is the deal: It takes a MUCH better transducer to faithfully create the harmonics, tonal reverberations, string slide, etc. of a cello (just an example), than it does to reproduce a big boom from a soundtrack (unless that "boom" is from an orchestral source). These are just my opinions, but when a transducer is described as "musical", it simply means that it is more capable of faster transients, dynamics, and transparency. A "musical" speaker is typically much more linear across the entire frequency spectrum than a non-musical speaker.

I don't care for Dipoles/Bipoles either, just wanted to make sure your were aware that they are available (if you wanted to go that route).

Best Regards...Mike - Father & Son Audio

"faster transients, dynamics, and transparency" I guess the question is this wasted in the HT application?

Thanks
Marty