2. speakers
  3. 1070265826

Full range or sub/sat ?

Which give you what you want.I feel the best dedicated stereo only came from a pair of spica TC-50's and a vandersteen sub.The amp was a Musical fidelity B-1 or a B-2 I seem to have forgotten ( about 35 watts per ch. ).I felt the monitors got out of the way better than a full range with it's large baffle.
kgveteran
pubul57
3,712 posts
 
I agree with Ritteri on two counts,if I understand him correctly. 1. You need a full range speaker to properly implement a pair of subwoofers and 2. the most perceived improvment in sound from adding powered subwoofers comes in the midrange and highs. Might seem conterintuitive, but IMHO is correct.
ritteri
223 posts
 
Yep, thats basically what I said in a nutshell. =)
gregm
3,404 posts
 
Sorry Ritteri, I just got on to yr post. "Normally" priced commercial speakers are under the 22-25K mark. Indeed, these prices are anything BUT normal, but given the proliferation of full-range models OVER and above these prices, I chose this level arbitrarily -- I admit. Some of the more expensive offerings are accompanied by subs anyway (bigger Genesis, A-Physic, etc), even though the
So, again, not only do I agree with your concept -- speaker manufacturers do, too.
inna
7,296 posts
 
Full range,and a strong amp.Like Gryphon, for example. Most have no idea what a great amplifier can do to those 8 inch drivers. But if your mind is set on sub, REL then, of course.
More to discover