HT speaker selection, the reasons?

[vxaudio]

recently, a friend asked me why i bought two floor speakers for my fronts, a center, and 4 surrounds instead of just buying 6 same sized speakers and a center. my answer was b/c i started with just the 2 fronts as stereo and then added on. This made me think however what advantages/disadvantages a setup like mine has opposed to set of full range, all samed sized speakers (such as the new SVS i posted recently) Ive noticed that almost 100% of all posters here that i think of as helpful and knowleagable have a setup like mine and not a HTIB type setup. Why is this?? (if you can buy fullrange bookshelf speakers)

ive often wandered how much more work the fronts do in movies compared to the surrounds and if this is why its important to have a more full range set in fronts. Is there any type of percentage played per speaker in movies or maybe what percentage is sent where in a dpl IIX or pro-logic scheme?

its obvious that for a stereo setup, 2 nice fronts are mandatory. Also, what exactly is a moniter and the difference betweenother types?

The new SVS set really got me thinking b/c their bookshelves go flat all the way down to below a 80hz crossover for every speaker. Is this just an exceptional setup and perhaps a trend setter opposing larger, full ranged fronts? or am i missing a more important reason for the fronts being larger and having more woofer/tweeters ect?

all the above also is assuming the use of a sub for under 80hz

[N. Abstentia]

I never felt that the front speakers needed to be larger for any particular reason other than they give the sound you are looking for. Personally I don't like the sound floorstanders and feel a smaller speaker sound much better, which is why I use 4 matching stand mount speakers.

[Woochifer]

recently, a friend asked me why i bought two floor speakers for my fronts, a center, and 4 surrounds instead of just buying 6 same sized speakers and a center. my answer was b/c i started with just the 2 fronts as stereo and then added on. This made me think however what advantages/disadvantages a setup like mine has opposed to set of full range, all samed sized speakers (such as the new SVS i posted recently) Ive noticed that almost 100% of all posters here that i think of as helpful and knowleagable have a setup like mine and not a HTIB type setup. Why is this?? (if you can buy fullrange bookshelf speakers)

The HTIB systems are big time compromises that place the priority on compact size and low price point. Once your budget goes into the $1,000 range, then you have a little bit more flexibility on your choices. Below that point, you're usually looking at significant performance compromises. Most of the long-time regulars on this board invested more than $1,000 into their speaker setup, which is why you don't see a lot of us using HTIB package speakers. My original speaker budget was $1,000, and the sound quality of the 5.1 packages I listened was unacceptable for my long-term enjoyment. That's why I applied that entire budget towards just two speakers, and added the other speakers and the subwoofer over the next two years as my budget allowed.

Keep in mind that those SVS speakers are far from full range. Typically, that term refers to large floorstanding speakers that can accurately extend down to at least 35 Hz. The SVS speakers can go down to about 70 Hz, which means that they can cover the full frequency range down to the typical crossover point for a home theater receiver. But, that does not make them full range -- it simply means that they won't leave any huge frequency gaps if you use an 80 Hz crossover point with your subwoofer.

ive often wandered how much more work the fronts do in movies compared to the surrounds and if this is why its important to have a more full range set in fronts. Is there any type of percentage played per speaker in movies or maybe what percentage is sent where in a dpl IIX or pro-logic scheme?

The front three channels will carry most of the audio information, but that no reason to compromise on the surrounds or go overboard with the fronts either. The key to making it all sound the way it's supposed to is to properly voice match the speakers all the way around. With multichannel soundtracks that do a lot of front to back imaging cues, you need the speakers to have comparable voice characteristics in order for that imaging effect to take hold (and you need arrange the speakers in the correct alignment, and setup the distance correctly on the processor). In a 5.1 soundtrack, the speakers are all working together, and even though they're typically not engaged all the time, the quality of the match with the surround speakers will make or break the encirclement effect and how well placed all of the sound elements are within the 360 degree soundfield.

People go with more substantial front speakers primarily for two-channel listening. If you have its obvious that for a stereo setup, 2 nice fronts are mandatory. Also, what exactly is a moniter and the difference betweenother types?

Monitor is an arbitrary term. In some usage, it implies self-powered speaker, in others, it describes speakers used in studio settings that are optimized for listening in the nearfield (i.e. with the speakers mounted in close proxmity to a mixing board).

The new SVS set really got me thinking b/c their bookshelves go flat all the way down to below a 80hz crossover for every speaker. Is this just an exceptional setup and perhaps a trend setter opposing larger, full ranged fronts? or am i missing a more important reason for the fronts being larger and having more woofer/tweeters ect?

That SVS package is no different than buying four bookshelf speakers with a matching center speaker and a subwoofer. The SVS set is nice because it's marketed as a 5.1 package, and bookshelf-sized speakers are unusual for most 5.1 packages because they tend to favor using smaller micro speakers.

But, the SVS speakers themselves are not all that different performance-wise from a good $200 pair of bookshelf speakers like the Paradigm Titan. The Titans have a frequency response that goes below 60 Hz, and several other bookshelf models have comparable performance.