How Many Speakers Are Too Many?

[gerbilaudio]

reply to theresa,
the ohm's are actually my favorite, they are kind of like a blend of electrostats and dynamics all in one. My only issue with the ohm's are the use of DOMES for the tweeters or high frequency where I believe the walsh CLS design would be more effective using ribbon or electrostat drivers or at least a horn type. I intend to use my janszen z-130 Hp ADD ON driver to the ohm's and put it in another of level of realism. I already bought a single crossover fixed at 800hz which the janszen operates on to match my ohm 300 mk 2. I may even use the janszen's on my ESS AMT 1D. I was told by the more knowledgeable musician and audiophile to use his advents to match the janszens with because it goes lower then 35 hz in the low frequency range then any of my noted speakers. I have the heritage advents with dual 8 inch driver using kevlar woven design from peerless and usher. I think I'll match them up with my ESS HEIL C drivers instead. The ohm's are probably the best in surround sound for my system since it's a 180 degree dispearsion. It's not really a true omni design. The true omni designs would be my DBX vintage soundfield 10 or any of the super exotic duevel, mbl and german physics or the original bic typanni loudspeakers

[barryrobin]

Jun 9, 2011 15:47:34 GMT -5 gerbilaudio said:

I have way too many. I just keep collecting them. It's called speaker addiction. Those of us here with speaker addiction, we should register at emotiva's SPEAKER ADDICTION ANONYMOUS which I think the staff at emotiva should create. I have anything from dynamic design to electrostats. a few samples, acoustat, magnepan, ohm's, SLS, sunfire, klipsch, bic, eminent tech, svs, dcm, ess heil, janszens, linaeum, wharfedale, audio pro, rca and growing! I like the build of the emotiva's but I do not like the high frequency drivers or tweeters used. Ribbons or electrostats, horns and bullet designs are a far superior than those outdated domes. The only thing domes are more advanced in are the old piezo electric designs. The only exceptions to domes are those that have a kevlar or similar treated materials and in a LINE ARRAY. Unless the domes are of good quality and in a line array configuration, a single dome is very inferior in sound dispersment having in adequate frequency response in the higher octaves. electrostats, ribbons and horns are the way to go in speaker designs

+1 for electrostatics for music); for HD i prefer conventonal cones and domes-and line arrays...)

-b

[wizardofoz]

If I had the wall and the $$$ I could get this

www.imgswallcoverings.com/shop/straw.html

[ausman]

speaker wall paper how droll lol, anything over 11 speakers I would say a post processor would be needed

[NorthStar]

I believe that if the sound engineers are doing a good job, seven speakers (in a normal sized room) is perfect.

The five regular ones and the two DSX Wide ones.

But nine speakers is also a good number (with the two rears).

And eleven is for the hardcore people with appropiate room dimensions.

___________________

* Five is just fine for smaller rooms.

Sooooooooooooo, between five and eleven, which is eight.

____________________
____________________

Now the real question is: How many subwoofers are too many?

[Deleted]

I don't know how many subs would be too many but four is probably enough.

[barryrobin]

Jun 10, 2011 6:15:30 GMT -5 @theresa said:

I don't know how many subs would be too many but four is probably enough.

i personally feel that-in a perfect world-each channel should be run full-range and therefore have it's own sub. seven channels-seven subs.

-b

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2011 6:28:29 GMT -5 barryrobin said:

Jun 10, 2011 6:15:30 GMT -5 @theresa said:

I don't know how many subs would be too many but four is probably enough.

i personally feel that-in a perfect world-each channel should be run full-range and therefore have it's own sub. seven channels-seven subs.

-b

That's one possibility, but from what I've read the best low frequency response, fewest modes, is one halfway along each side of the room. The great advantage of separate subs is being able to place them where they work best instead of where they would work worst. In a perfect world there would be no room resonances, but that is not the way the real world is. I personally have my subs under my L/Rs because that is about the only place I can have them or at least the best available.

[xki]

Jun 10, 2011 6:28:29 GMT -5 barryrobin said:

Jun 10, 2011 6:15:30 GMT -5 @theresa said:

I don't know how many subs would be too many but four is probably enough.

i personally feel that-in a perfect world-each channel should be run full-range and therefore have it's own sub. seven channels-seven subs.

-b

I'm in the same camp as you. And this is where the industry will hopefully focus. Each full range speaker 'should' be capable of producing all frequencies that are needed. 20-20k

LFE channels rose to meet the demands of a sub added to an otherwise fine speakered system. Fine down to about 45Hz. Now that the vast majority of us have enjoyed what the 20-45Hz range can bring to just about any well engineered source material, there should be speakers capable of reproducing those lower frequencies in addition to the normal range at a price point that won't force us back into adding subs.

However, space and budget will always demand that subs be available. The way it is now, most setups require a sub or more to offer low end. Even though those frequencies are somewhat non-directional, experience has shown that 2 subs is better than 1 and 7 would be grand - IF - each speaker had its own sub. Imagine a left rear surround channel in a battle scene thumping you in the back when a bomb goes off behind you!

The source, of course, would have to have the option of a blended LFE channel from all 7 normal channels instead of an engineered LFE channel. A paradigm shift would need to come about in the industry. Not a major undertaking if a soundtrack for a movie would be mastered with 7 sub-frequency capable speakers in the studio.

Sigh - Then I woke up!

I could go buy 5 more subs that are capable of passing through the upper frequencies but, the LFE would then be spread evenly over all remaining 7 channels defeating the true surround given by the 7 subs to make sure that I didn't miss the content of the engineered sub channel. Now my head hurts.

[Deleted]

I'd love to hear the Ohms and the others. I read about them decades ago and was/am fascinated by them. Modern speaker design has come so far though, with low distortion, extended frequency response, that conventional high end drivers are hard to beat. Still I want to hear the exotics to see if there is something I'm missing and out of pure curiosity. When I was a young woman there were many interesting speakers introduced. I think I heard a Walsh in a showroom. Frankly though, it was a conventional speaker that caught my interest the most, the AR-9. I couldn't afford anything though and for a long time used speakers dating from the '60s. I continued to use a Dynaco tube set up until the late '70s, not because I was a purist but because I couldn't afford to replace it. One cannot put together an audiophile system if one isn't able to get enough food. Soon I will be impoverished again but at least will have the comfort of having put together my dream actively crossed over system.

[Nemesis.ie]

Jun 10, 2011 7:34:19 GMT -5 @theresa said:

Jun 10, 2011 6:28:29 GMT -5 barryrobin said:

i personally feel that-in a perfect world-each channel should be run full-range and therefore have it's own sub. seven channels-seven subs.

-b

That's one possibility, but from what I've read the best low frequency response, fewest modes, is one halfway along each side of the room. The great advantage of separate subs is being able to place them where they work best instead of where they would work worst. In a perfect world there would be no room resonances, but that is not the way the real world is. I personally have my subs under my L/Rs because that is about the only place I can have them or at least the best available.

You'd certainly want the LFE played to all subs (EQed as a single one) and I think maybe 40Hz would be lowest sensible XO if running speakers "full" via large drivers or a sub per speaker, that way you get the need SPL in the lower ranges. As I've mentioned before, I plan to experiment with exactly this and 6 subs whenever I get a proper room.

[Nemesis.ie]

Jun 10, 2011 7:44:43 GMT -5 xki said:

Jun 10, 2011 6:28:29 GMT -5 barryrobin said:

I could go buy 5 more subs that are capable of passing through the upper frequencies but, the LFE would then be spread evenly over all remaining 7 channels defeating the true surround given by the 7 subs to make sure that I didn't miss the content of the engineered sub channel. Now my head hurts.

You would still have the LFE channel directed to all of the subs (and EQed to the main seating area). The LFE channel can be set to go up to 120Hz but as we know is recorded 10db higher than the other channels so you have a separate channel that can give you the extra "oomph". I would like to see processors that redirect LFE above the LFE XO to all of the speakers (or whichever the user chooses) rather than just the mains.

[xki]

Jun 10, 2011 9:32:40 GMT -5 Nemesis.ie said:

Jun 10, 2011 7:44:43 GMT -5 xki said:

Jun 10, 2011 6:28:29 GMT -5 barryrobin said:

I could go buy 5 more subs that are capable of passing through the upper frequencies but, the LFE would then be spread evenly over all remaining 7 channels defeating the true surround given by the 7 subs to make sure that I didn't miss the content of the engineered sub channel. Now my head hurts.

You would till have the LFE channel directed to all of the subs (and EQed to the main seating area). The LFE channel can be set to go up to 120Hz but as we know is recorded 10db higher than the other channels so you have a separate channel that can give you the extra "oomph". I would like to see processors that redirect LFE above the LFE XO to all of the speakers (or whichever the user chooses) rather than just the mains.

That would be nice.

[xki]

Jun 10, 2011 7:34:19 GMT -5 @theresa said:

Jun 10, 2011 6:28:29 GMT -5 barryrobin said:

i personally feel that-in a perfect world-each channel should be run full-range and therefore have it's own sub. seven channels-seven subs.

-b

That's one possibility, but from what I've read the best low frequency response, fewest modes, is one halfway along each side of the room. The great advantage of separate subs is being able to place them where they work best instead of where they would work worst. In a perfect world there would be no room resonances, but that is not the way the real world is. I personally have my subs under my L/Rs because that is about the only place I can have them or at least the best available.

I would love to be able to put the 2 on the sides just to hear how it sounds. Unfortunately, 1 wall is plaster, the other mostly glass. That and the room isn't quite wide enough. Maybe I'll try anyway.

Mine are placed on the front wall equidistance between the lower center and the mains. They do a fine job with movies or music. But, if the source has a drummers bass drum mixed off center, it sounds a little wrong.

[gerbilaudio]

I would agree with the people like theresa regarding domes back in the 80's and early 90's prior to obtaining the many loudspeaker systems I have collected the past 30 yrs. There are many audiophiles like myself that will disagree and agree with the commentators who are dome or conventional design only. The truth is EVERYONE hears things differently. What sounds good to one, might sound crappy to another. It's a fact of life. There is NO perfect loudspeaker for anyone. We pretty much get what we can normally afford within our budget. Do you think I would stop here if I could afford a GERMAN PHYSIK GAUB OR LORELY speaker system or the MBL 101E EXTREME, a duevel, pipedreams, genesis or old infinity rs V's, wilson watt puppies, martin logan statement, or b&w flagships, avan garde, magico which all of these systems would require a mansion or a warehouse to have enough room to breath? I was a bose 901 owner in the 80's, a JBL owner, KLH, radio shack, you name it, nothing but domes and dynamic drivers. Among all the speakers I can afford and have, the acoustat spectra 33 w/spl-1 passive sub the size of a WALL, 68 h"x29" w x 3" d and requires at least 100 watt rms/ch just to drive, the eminent technology lft 8a, magnepan mg 2.5r and my ohm 300 mk 2 is the most realistic affordable loudspeaker system I've heard compared to CONVENTIONAL dynamic driver designs which so many people defend so much not hearing other exotic systems. Why else you think the oldest speaker manufacturer KLIPSCH HORN are still loved to this day. Magnepan creates piano realistically I've not heard on regular dynamic drivers using dome high frequency drivers. Unless you own or had time to critically listen to unconventional designs and actually experienced them and make a neutral assessment, you can't really make an UNBIAS comment about a speaker system. Dome high frequency drivers are just ok to me, it's not my choice of drivers at all unless it's used in UNCONVENTIONAL design like I said before in a LINE ARRAY configuration or ohm walsh CLS (coherent line source) designs and in some case the type of treated and material used in the domes used by more exotic designs like MAGICO and B&W I would agree with the DOME lovers here at emotiva forum. I will stick to my electrostats and planars ANY DAY over domes and regular dynamic drivers. I happen to have JANSZENs electrostat add ons (they've been around as long as klipsch. dr. janszens, klipschs, walsh, heil were some of the great sound engineers/scientists)...until you heard electrostats, planars/ribbons with the appropriate gear and environment, you don't know what you're missing. By the way many live concerts uses RIBBON drivers in array form for commercial application now which they haven't done in the past in which all they had back then was dome drivers. SLS is one of those ribbon manufacturers for home and pro use. I own the home version of SLS ribbons. If you're a RIBBON driver lover, YOU CAN TIE A YELLOW RIBBON DOWN THE OLD OAK TREE! I must be getting old with that tony orlando voice ringing in my ears and the hall effect of DAWN...TONY ORLANDO and DAWN!

[xki]

+! BTW, now I've got that dang song stuck in my head!!!!!!!!!!

[gerbilaudio]

too many speakers is NEVER ENOUGH. speaker collectors always wants more. About domes, I like them too. It's just the way they are used and TREATED and material used is really my main criticism of the standard dome tweeter design. I was piezo electric tweeter fan in the earlier days. Now they're pretty outdated like paper cones. It's not about just the sound, it's also durability, maintenance and NOISE or distortion level as well when designing or building DIY loudspeakers. There are vintage systems that's as good today and in some cases even better then some of the designs of today. NEWER doesn't always mean better, for the most part because of research and technology, most designs have gotten better, although because of R&D, materials used today are many times cheaper and with inferior parts unless you're willing to spend an arm and a leg. Many materials that was used in the past are expensive to manufacture and in some cases obtain in today's manufacturing process. Audio collection is a hobby, speaker collection is a hobby within a hobby.

[Deleted]

Very true that we all hear differently. Not all domes and cones are alike though. There are good and bad ones. The more you pay, the more likely they will be better. Too many people compare a $5 dome with a $200 ribbon, there will be a big difference in distortion and frequency response. Right now I have some very good domes (Eton Magnesium/Ceramic) and PAPER cones (ScanSpeak 18W4531 and 18W8531) and they are head and shoulders above the Vifa's I used 10+ years ago or any others I've heard. Their nonlinear distortion is almost non-existent. Perhaps I will grow tired of the Etons and go to a really good soft dome eventually, one of the advantages of putting one's own speakers together is it doesn't require replacing everything in order to get a different driver. I recommend looking at the Zaph Acoustics site and his measurements of both domes and non-domes. It seems of the non-domes he tested only the B&G planars were as good as domes as far as distortion is concerned. Admittedly he didn't test all the different ribbons and planar tweeters, so yours may be the exception. I remember how enchanted I was by Focal Titanium domes back in the '90s and now I realize the sparkle was just distortion. Nothing wrong with preferring more distortion as long as one realizes that is what it is. They wore on me with time and now I know why.

[skeetlong]

i think you can never have too may speakers....i am going to buy two more just too have them when they stop making the one's i have now..leave them in the box's..and wala!..two of them when i need them....

[STRYKKER]

11 speakers myself......you need an amp to push them......