View Full Version : "best speaker" based of frequency
PAUL250268
09-18-2009, 05:22 PM
Hi
Which of the following speaker specifications is "best"? Will be used as fronts in conjunction with a sub. 50% music and 50% movies.
(a) 80Hz - 22kHz
or
(b) 50Hz - 22kHz
Thanks
Paul
jrhymeammo
09-18-2009, 05:36 PM
This one looks suspcious, but I'll bite.
What speakers are you talking about?
bobsticks
09-18-2009, 05:41 PM
Specifically, to which two speakers do you refer?
What are the associated electronics? (amps, pre's, and source)
What are the room conditions?
02audionoob
09-18-2009, 06:20 PM
Hi
Which of the following speaker specifications is "best"? Will be used as fronts in conjunction with a sub. 50% music and 50% movies.
(a) 80Hz - 22kHz
or
(b) 50Hz - 22kHz
Thanks
Paul
All else being equal, the better spec is b. Which is the better speaker? Anybody's guess.
PAUL250268
09-18-2009, 06:32 PM
Basic HT set-up.
HTD center (flat panel) http://www.htd.com/cabinet-speakers/flat-panel-speakers/flat-panel-speaker
HTD Level 2 sub
Sony Blu ray player
Onkyo SR TX 507 5.1 receiver
I currently have above plus 2 pairs of in walls http://www.htd.com/in-wall-ceiling-speakers/high-definition/HD-W65-in-wall-speakers It works well but we have just bought a new home and I am little concerned that the right hand side wall does not have the same "density" as the left because it's a false wall.
So, I was wondering whether I should just go with 2 flat panels L & R.
I don't have room for floor standing speakers and I'm on a budget.
And why did the post look suspicious?
Thanks
Paul
02audionoob
09-18-2009, 06:42 PM
Basic HT set-up.
HTD center (flat panel) http://www.htd.com/cabinet-speakers/flat-panel-speakers/flat-panel-speaker
HTD Level 2 sub
Sony Blu ray player
Onkyo SR TX 507 5.1 receiver
I currently have above plus 2 pairs of in walls http://www.htd.com/in-wall-ceiling-speakers/high-definition/HD-W65-in-wall-speakers It works well but we have just bought a new home and I am little concerned that the right hand side wall does not have the same "density" as the left because it's a false wall.
So, I was wondering whether I should just go with 2 flat panels L & R.
I don't have room for floor standing speakers and I'm on a budget.
And why did the post look suspicious?
Thanks
Paul
I don't understand how this information relates to or clarifies the original question, but it's likely still useful. I also don't understand what a false wall is or how that would affect your decision on the number of speakers. If you want to be able to maximize your movie experience, you'll need 5 speakers in addition to the sub...but I guess you knew that. Can you explain the intent of the original question?
PAUL250268
09-18-2009, 06:45 PM
I don't understand how this information relates to or clarifies the original question, but it's likely still useful. I also don't understand what a false wall is or how that would affect your decision on the number of speakers. If you want to be able to maximize your movie experience, you'll need 5 speakers in addition to the sub...but I guess you knew that. Can you explain the intent of the original question?
Sorry. The "rough" photoshop area to the right of the fireplace is now a sheetrock wall.
My questions is :
In walls or flat panel mounted onto surface of wall.
Thanks.
Paul
02audionoob
09-18-2009, 06:57 PM
No question in my mind out of those two options. I'd go for the 4 little in-wall speakers and a center. It just seems more like the way home theater audio ought to work.
PAUL250268
09-18-2009, 07:29 PM
All else being equal, the better spec is b. Which is the better speaker? Anybody's guess.
Hi
Thanks for the response.
Could you explain why.
Paul
blackraven
09-18-2009, 08:10 PM
I vote for in wall also for home theater. Its a cleaner look. I feel that HT should be inconspicuous if possible. Who wants 5-7 speakers sitting visible in a room? (some people would I'm sure).
And spec B is better because of the greater frequency range. B dips down lower so your cross over point can be a little lower with the sub.
02audionoob
09-18-2009, 08:15 PM
Hi
Thanks for the response.
Could you explain why.
Paul
Your original question asked about nothing more than the range of frequency response. A wider range would mean that the speaker will respond to and reproduce a wider range. That's added capability not offered with the spec of a narrrower range.
I said that with all else being equal...meaning a speaker could have a narrower range of frequency response and still be the better speaker of the two.
The reasons I like the 4 in-wall speakers as compared to the 2 panel speakers are (a) I suspect the panel speakers could lose their focus with all those drivers and HT relies heavily on location of sound and (b) your panel option offered fewer speakers than is required for the full 5.1 program, again compromising location and direction of sound.
blackraven
09-18-2009, 08:18 PM
Very true Noob. Its only if all things are equal except for the freq. response can you say B is better.
PAUL250268
09-18-2009, 09:14 PM
Your original question asked about nothing more than the range of frequency response. A wider range would mean that the speaker will respond to and reproduce a wider range. That's added capability not offered with the spec of a narrrower range.
I said that with all else being equal...meaning a speaker could have a narrower range of frequency response and still be the better speaker of the two.
The reasons I like the 4 in-wall speakers as compared to the 2 panel speakers are (a) I suspect the panel speakers could lose their focus with all those drivers and HT relies heavily on location of sound and (b) your panel option offered fewer speakers than is required for the full 5.1 program, again compromising location and direction of sound.
I apologize noob. I will have 5.1 whatever I decide to do. I'll be running 2 in-ceiling for the surrounds (not ideal I know but it's all I can have).
I'm just trying to decide what to do about the front L and R.
Paul
02audionoob
09-18-2009, 10:04 PM
I hope I'm getting closer to understanding it all, now. I like blackraven's comment about the system being inconspicuous and the one about being able to cross over the sub lower...so I guess I still vote for the in-wall speakers.
thekid
09-19-2009, 02:37 AM
I vote for in wall also for home theater. Its a cleaner look. I feel that HT should be inconspicuous if possible. Who wants 5-7 speakers sitting visible in a room? (some people would I'm sure).
You mean like this....... :D
Sorry could not resist........
Please resume normal serious answers to OP
poppachubby
09-19-2009, 03:14 AM
You mean like this....... :D
Sorry could not resist........
Please resume normal serious answers to OP
hahahahahahaha....well done kid, "the wall". Feared by wives all over the world. Of course, also known for its superb HT application. Oh man, that was perfect timing...
E-Stat
09-19-2009, 09:02 AM
Which of the following speaker specifications is "best"?
Unfortunately, that is like asking whether using eight spark plugs is better than six. There are so many other relevant variables to speaker performance. First of all, every speaker exhibits variations around their nominal response. Those two sets of numbers could represent the same speaker using different tolerances.
I'll be happy to comment if you care to provide two real world examples.
rw
02audionoob
09-19-2009, 09:38 AM
I thought we are talking about real world examples.
E-Stat
09-19-2009, 09:44 AM
I thought we are talking about real world examples.
My mistake - now I see the linked examples. Since neither provides the frequency tolerance, we can only guess. Ideally, a center speaker would use similar drivers as the mains if not a pair of slightly smaller woofers.
rw
02audionoob
09-19-2009, 09:58 AM
Choosing from the two options given by the OP, I just wouldn't want to add any more of that particular cabinet speaker. I'd rather have four of the little guy...
http://www.htd.com/cabinet-speakers/flat-panel-speakers/middy-compact-speaker;jsessionid=0a01054f1f431239873cb2d34198850 9d417507c3816.e3eTaxiNaN0Te34Pa38Ta38PbN90
Pat D
09-21-2009, 08:18 AM
Hi
Which of the following speaker specifications is "best"? Will be used as fronts in conjunction with a sub. 50% music and 50% movies.
(a) 80Hz - 22kHz
or
(b) 50Hz - 22kHz
Thanks
Paul
Those specs are virtually meaningless as they give no plus and minus tolerances. As well, with many manufacturers we have no idea what the speaker specs mean, anyway, like how were they derived (imagination? some sort of measurement?). Does speaker (b) actually go lower than speaker (b)? It's hard to say without measurements.
As well, even with plus or minus limits, the spec gives no suggestion as to the dispersion pattern of the speakers. Some manufacturers do supply such information in minimal form, but few actually supply graphs such as found in Stereophile or Soundstage.
Hi
Which of the following speaker specifications is "best"? Will be used as fronts in conjunction with a sub. 50% music and 50% movies.
(a) 80Hz - 22kHz
or
(b) 50Hz - 22kHz
Thanks
Paul
Like Pat D said, these are meaningless in itself. If speaker A had ruler flat frequncy response and speaker B's frequency response was filled with hills and valleys, I would definetaly choose speaker A over speaker B. Frequency response isn't enough. There HAS to be a tolerance +/- ??db..with te smaller the value in ?? the better the speaker. Also missing is sensitivity, input impedance; both nominal and minimum. All these factors into what kind of amplifciation is needed to drive the loudspeaker.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.