nicholtl Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 A friend of mine is putting together a 5.1 system, and wants to use the RC-35 and RF-35's as his center and mains, respectively. What we want to know is if using another pair of RF-35's as the surrounds speakers would yield better results over a pair of RS-35s. I was told that most people get surround-type speakers because they are more affordable. Money is not a concern for my pal Dennis. I also figure that any floorstander would be able to reproduce what it's surround counterpart could, and then some. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonrpayne Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 The most important thing for the surrounds is that they are full range speakers, ergo they don't need to be set to "small" at the receiver. To use surrounds or regular floorstanding speakers is a large debate here. I would say that as long as you have the space so that you can position them regular floorstanding speakers will ultimately deliver more/better sound. I plan on moving my RF-5s to the surround position after I get some RF-7s next year. If money is no object for your friend, tell him to think about Reference 7 instead of Reference 35 speakers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor.Ham.Slap Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Given the situation, if he has the space I'd say get a RF-35 for the center channel instead of the RC if he has the space. Many people have commented on this in the past and nothing sounds better than a seamless front soundstage. Then, if he can get all five the same, that is the best that there is. Also, I agree that if he can swing it, step up to the 7's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted August 20, 2003 Author Share Posted August 20, 2003 Hehe well when I said money wasn't a concern for him, I didn't mean it on the level of 5 RF-7s (though that must sound mindblowing!). I meant he could afford 2 pairs of floorstanders, instead of floorstanders and surrounds. We're also kinda going for the asthetic thing, so a tower on/behind the tv would look kinda nuts. I didn't realize this was a topic of debate? I would hardly consider RS speakers full-range, as they only go to around 56hz or higher. Their floorstanding counterparts can hit low 30s to mid 40hz. I guess it just comes down to the money issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhingalala Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 ---------------- On 8/20/2003 1:10:27 PM nicholtl wrote: I didn't realize this was a topic of debate? I would hardly consider RS speakers full-range, as they only go to around 56hz or higher. Their floorstanding counterparts can hit low 30s to mid 40hz. I guess it just comes down to the money issue. ---------------- Rather than a money issue, it is an issue of whether one likes directly radiated sound (from floorstanding/bookshelf speakers) or a diffuse sound (from the surround speakers). I personally like the direct sound for music in 6 channels. However, I definitely prefer the surrounds for movies because of the ambience they convey. Movies have a lot of ambient sound encoded e.g. rain, flying planes, echoes, applause, side conversations etc. Additionally, the lower frequencies are better handled by a subwoofer anyway. In the end it is a matter of personal preference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 To kinda expand on what jhingalala said. Oh and this is just my opinion, I don't have numbers or facts to prove any of this. I know that a lot of people what to go the 5 of the same speaker rout. That may be good and all, but if you are a movie watcher like me, how well does that really work? I have not heard a theater setup like that but it stands to reason that having direct speakers for surrounds would not give the best home theater movie going experiance. Why? They are just that "Direct". When a car drives by, do you want it to be heard up front then *POOF* there it is directly to your side? Or do you want a smooth transition from front to side? Directs work great in a movie house because the rooms are huge and they can pile on the side surrounds which give the perception of a smooth transition. But in eveyones living room or home theater room, the rooms are not going to be as massive thus you can't mount 5 or so side surrounds. Eh, I dunno. Just seems to me that if you are only going to have 1 row of surrounds, then you would be better off with dedicated side surround speakers. Me? I have two rows of side surrounds as well as two rears. I most likely could move away from the RS7s and go with a direct speaker and it just may sound better, but I doubt I would make the change if I didn't have the 4 extra speakers. As the great Trey once told me when I was trying to decide on RS7s or RC7s for surrounds.... "When a bullet is fired from over yander, I want it to sounds like it is coming from over yander". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonrpayne Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Moon, are you saying that a pair of RF-7s would not have the same imaging as a pair of RS-7s for side surrounds? Isn't the transition between channels almost entirely a function of the sound processor? I don't think the wide dispertion technology in the RS-X series speakers accomplishes the effect you speak of. But that's just my opinion. If aesthetics are an issue you probably should go with RS-7s for your surround. If he can afford a second pair of floorstanding speakers, he can afford RS-7 surrounds. good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Well, kinda I suppose. It just seems to reason that the design of the RSx speakers alone would make for a better surround than a direct. I am not saying that the RSx would necessarly have a better overall sound quality, just that for movie watching panning from front to side would be better. BUT, then again, I could be wrong. I do conceede I could be VERY wrong on this and that maybe (for my situation, room size constraints) RC7s would be better than RS7s... Dunno, but if there are folks who are willing to send me their RC7s (need 4) I would be more than happy to mount them and give my analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 He could also consider using RB-35s for the rear. With a 3dB-down point of 45Hz they are worthy enough to set to "Large" and would be a good compromise between the RF-35s (with a 3dB-down point of 37Hz) and RS-35s (with 3dB-down point of 81Hz). Theoretically for a 5.1 system, you want the exact same speaker in all five locations -- but that isn't always possible. You do want to make sure your front three speakers have the exact same tweeter (or better yet all five)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USparc Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 ---------------- On 8/20/2003 2:47:08 PM damonrpayne wrote: Isn't the transition between channels almost entirely a function of the sound processor? I don't think the wide dispertion technology in the RS-X series speakers accomplishes the effect you speak of. But that's just my opinion. ---------------- That is just a very good opinion!! IMHO WDST speakers try to create an array of speakers. Wide dispersion ... Transition will be even lost. The position of sounds and transistion is in the recording. You even notice this in just 2 channel music recordings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladi Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 I share m00n's opinion on the subject of wide dispersion technology versus direct radiation, since I tried them both. The WDST is much better for surrounds than durect, it creates better ambience and surround effects for movies. I think what m00n means by smoother transition with the WDST is that they fill the room with more ambience -- the horns are not aimed at the listening position but are on the side at 90 degrees of each other. I used to have RS-3 and they were excellent, but I switched to RB-3 for surrounds!!! Why did I do that if the RS-3 were better? Because of multi-channel music -- DVD-A and SACD. The WDST sound is weird for 5.1 music because of the wide dispersion. So I set my priorities, and music happened to be of higher priority for me so I switched to RB-3. Now I MISS my RS-3 while watching movies, however the RB-3 also do an outstanding job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBB Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 I bought both RS-7s and RF-7s for surrounds. I experimented back and forth between the two types. My room seems to sound better with the floor standers. I wont give up my RS-7s because you never know what Ill do next. The floor standers do give you the ability to use them for other applications in case you upgrade or break up your system and want to use them in another room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladi Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 USparc, I don't agree completely with the "poor" transition of RS-3. The horns are 90° x 60° and they are at 45° to the listening position (if placed to the side), which means the listening position is covered by the horns. One would still here direct sound coming from the horns, but in addition there will be dispersed sound that creates the ambience effect. Just my opinion though... Also, from your signature I read "RF-3 fully reloaded". Have you modded the speakers? I will be very interested to know what and how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USparc Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 ---------------- On 8/20/2003 4:26:28 PM Vladi wrote: USparc, I don't agree completely with the "poor" transition of RS-3. The horns are 90° x 60° and they are at 45° to the listening position (if placed to the side), which means the listening position is covered by the horns. One would still here direct sound coming from the horns, but in addition there will be dispersed sound that creates the ambience effect. Just my opinion though... Also, from your signature I read "RF-3 fully reloaded". Have you modded the speakers? I will be very interested to know what and how. ---------------- Strange?? dispersed sound that is direct?? My point of view of surround speakers is that they are just speakers. Any ambient sound or whatever there needs to be behind or somewhat left,... is in the recording material. The movie makers are mixing the movie not the speakers. WDST speakers can enforce this but ... . Then what about SACD. There is also ambient sound in the recordings just as in movies. What is the difference?? None, it is all in the mastered recording. If you know what effects and 3d depth a 2 channel system can bring with just a CD ... . Yea, my RF-3's fully reloaded. reloaded -> adding matrix bracing structure. fully -> updating crossover to high quality components. check in odds and mods for the topics: Unleash the power of the RF-3 RF-3 crossover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 ---------------- On 8/20/2003 4:14:18 PM Vladi wrote: I share m00n's opinion on the subject of wide dispersion technology versus direct radiation, since I tried them both. The WDST is much better for surrounds than durect, it creates better ambience and surround effects for movies. I think what m00n means by smoother transition with the WDST is that they fill the room with more ambience -- the horns are not aimed at the listening position but are on the side at 90 degrees of each other. ---------------- Yeah... So with the horns spraying in front and behind you, it seems to me as though that would give a better pan front to rear... yeah? no? If not, then what is the peice of the puzzle that I am missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted August 20, 2003 Author Share Posted August 20, 2003 Hmm, all very thoughtful points. I understand the argument that wide dispersion will recreate the ambient and 3-dimensional space. However, with a sufficient sized room and with floorstanders placed at good distances from the listener, the sound waves would be given ample space to expand and fill the room. Hence, accomplishing the intended dispersion effect. Another point I never really considered, but is very valid, is that of SACD, DVD-A, or heck, even regular CD's. With so many receivers and prepros now, music can be played 5.1, 7.1, or even 10.2 (I know 2-channel stereo fanatics would hate this). If one likes to listen to music this way, as I admittedly do, a diffused effect in the rear would sound quite odd. I too agree that it is the job of the processor (and the recording) to correctly recreate the surround effect, blending the correct signals between fronts, sides, and rears. This is only my opinion, but if it is true, then that would kind of make the whole WDST obsolete, or rather, kind of a gimmick no? (Don't flame me please! Just my thoughts!) And true, while the sub would take care of the LFE frequencies, and the RS-X hit down to around 56hz, how powerful is their ability to recreate 60hz? 70hz? THX standard 80hz? To create the seamless transition between sub and speaker, it's my opinion that floorstanders (or even bookshelves) offer superior LFE which would offer a more transparant crossover effect. By the way, MoOn, how on earth are you running THAT many speakers? 11 is it? What kind of processor can do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Damn it Ear... now you have him spelling my name all jacked up too.(MoOn) So, I have on my receiver some preouts going to an external amp. My amp is powering the additional side surrounds while the receiver is handling the other 7. L/C/R, row one of the surrounds and rears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholtl Posted August 21, 2003 Author Share Posted August 21, 2003 Sorry mOOn. And jesus christ that's insane. that's a true home theater if i've ever heard of one. do you have a wife? how on earth did you get her to give the greenlight for all this stuff? or perhaps you have her on lockdown? i don't know why i'm rambling, probably cause i just had another 2 glenfiddich on rocks...but you know what sucks? i came home tonight and found that my RC-7 had fallen off my tv! all 45lbs of it! So now some of the wood is scratched, the wood on my sub is scratched, and the monster banana plugs broke off, so I had to use tweezers to pull the stems out. Try doing all that when you can't even see straight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilMays Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 I have experimented with both solutions. Currently I have one RS-7 for the rear speaker. For movies I feel it does give 180 degree dispersion and does a better job than the single floor standing speaker. However when I had a system that allowed for 7.1 setup I did have two RF-3's for the rears that I thought worked better. For those who like multi-channel music, like me, then the floor standing speaker has a far superior response to me. I would far prefer 2 RF-3's over one RS-7. m00n, nice system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 PhilMays, nicholtl Yeah thanks. It's no slouch. Never had a dissatisfied guest. . I will finally break down tonight and update my web site with some new pics. I have not put any new pics up in a LOOOONG time. It does not have any pics of what it looks like now that everthing is back in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.