|
Post by moodyman on Feb 13, 2010 1:37:19 GMT -5
The dual 8-inch woofers are very smooth and dynamic and the 8.3 has one of the best mid-to-upper bass responses I have heard in any speaker selling for less than $3000. It is not lacking in any area of sound reproduction... Damn straight.
|
|
|
Post by buckethead on Feb 13, 2010 1:37:51 GMT -5
thanks again guys for all the great info. On the case of the rythmik vs the svs i really like the sound of both the subs and i would be happy just to keep it but i feel the svs would be better in the size room that i have. i think my friend who bought the pc13 ultra eyes were bigger than his stomach putting that beast in the 3rd floor of an appartment complex lol(lot of complaints even turned super low). Anyone know how long this sale lasts because i will be ordering monday
|
|
|
Post by buckethead on Feb 13, 2010 3:53:09 GMT -5
Ok guys i think i have made my mind up finally. On monday i will be ordering 3 erm6.3 l/r/c, 2 erm6.2 s, and xpa-5. if i like how that all sounds i will upgrade alil farther down the road to a 7.1 with erd-1s and move the 6.2 to rear work and put a xpa-2 on the fronts and move the xpa-5 to center and surround/rear duties. thanks again for all the help
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Feb 13, 2010 8:28:33 GMT -5
Sorry, to throw in a comment here at the last minute. IMO, you are making a big mistake going with the 6.2's for surround use. The ERD-1's are specifically designed for surround use and have a four position bipole/dipole setting to match your room acoustics. I own the ERD-1's and they are excellent and the two toggle up bipole position makes them sound great on my rear wall as opposed to the side wall where they should be. I have no side wall on one side. I followed Emo's suggestion and use this switch position for ERD-1's on the rear wall, when spread wide apart, and it sounds terrific. The ERD-1's take lots of power and will play plenty loud for even very high volumes. The 6.2 is an excellent speaker but is not as good as the ERD-1 for surround duty. Emo matches all of their system packages with the ERD-1 for a good reason. ;D The best commercial and high end home theatres in the world dont use "bi/dipoles" spatial speakers, they use direct radiating monitors, more specifically they use fully matched monitors of identical size and design for all channels. So how would this change for the home environment? It won't. Have you personally tried your own room with 4 individual 6.2's? Im sorry but this has been discussed before but 2 tweeters and a single 5.25" driver with a few phase options is not going to match up nearly as well as a monitor with a pair of 6.5" drivers and a single tweeter, especially to a 3 6.3's up front. I mean, have you tried your own setup with 2 pairs of 6.2's for the surrounds? You'd be surprised at just how good it sounds(or how much better it sounds to be more specific). And lets ask ourselves this now. If the ERD's are so terrific for "surround" speakers, then why not use them for the L/C/R channels as well? I mean we are now in the age of discreet lossless 5/7.1 channel encoded movies and music right? Lets hear your logic..........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2010 9:08:37 GMT -5
yup, I'm with ntrain on this one..
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Feb 13, 2010 9:19:18 GMT -5
I will add one exception, as Chuckie did mention, he has an open side with no wall, then a pair of wall mounted ERD's may make sense due to limited mounting options and room layout, but if you have a full blown dedicated theatre room with 4 full walls then ERD's make no sense, get a true dedicated monitor or FR speaker for each channel.
And I will even say this, if your going to get 3 6.3's for the front 3 channels, get another pair of 6.3's for the surrounds as well. Keep all channel monitors the SAME.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Feb 13, 2010 14:03:48 GMT -5
The best commercial and high end home theatres in the world dont use "bi/dipoles" spatial speakers, they use direct radiating monitors, more specifically they use fully matched monitors of identical size and design for all channels. So how would this change for the home environment?.....Lets hear your logic.......... The normal HT setup and small-in home dedicated theaters are much smaller than large commercial theaters. These large theaters do not just have 2 or 4 surround speakers. They have many speakers spread to cover the entire listening area and are not directly aimed at the listeners. In your home situation the diffused sound of the bipole/dipole design is used to create the ambient/direct combination of surround sound and effects which envelopes the listeners. Much of the information in the surround channels is of ambient nature and not always direct sounds like the front LCR channels. The ERD-1's are not appropriate for the front channels for direct sounds and proper front soundstaging. Most of the sounds you hear in a live theater performance from your front are direct sounds and most of the sounds from your side and rear are indirect reflected sounds. Movies of course add some direct sounds from the side and rear. That is why in small home setups they try to achieve a balance between direct and indirect radiated sound from the bipole/dipole designed surround speakers which is the perfect compromise. I am well aware that the best voice/timbre matched surround sound for a HT can be all the same exact speaker all around. This is simply not usually practical for homes nor is a vertical center channel speaker. That is why they use small speakers for the surrounds (and redirect the low bass to the sub) and put center speaker on their sides. It also does not provide for the diffuse spread of sound required for most movies and multi-channel and Pro-Logic IIx music. Most movie theaters have the center channel in the vertical position and also have smaller speakers for the surrounds than the fronts. You're spouting a lot of misinformation here. BTW, I did have all 5 speakers exactly the same (all vertical) in my old small place when I had a small Energy system plus sub and there was no matching dipole/bipole back then. I custom ordered them this way. However, this is not practical for most folks. Why don't you get on the phone and tell Big Dan that he is way off for recommending a bipole/dipole design for his recommended systems. Tell the guys at Audioholics also that say the ERD-1 is the best surround design they have ever heard. The 1" tweeter and 2ea 5.25" drivers in the ERD-1 match up just fine with the 1" tweeter and 5.25" drivers in my ERM-1 and also the top of the line 8.3's. The 5.25 in the ERD-1's mate up with the 6.3's and 6.2's very well also. Your logic is wavering all over the place. BTW, awhile back you stated on this forum that a sub should only cover one octave from 20-40Hz. "Lets hear your logic......." on that one please. ;D Yes many theatres do have multiple arrays of speakers spread out over the entire hall(most times there are pairs run in parallel off one channel). But when it comes to a smaller room as you have mentioned, you dont need multiple arrays. The listening area and needed dispersion pattern is going to be MUCH SMALLER. Needing multiple direct radiating speaker arrays(which you can actually do if the room is large enough and warrents it) is not going to be needed. So your own point really actually reinforces my point. Again a switcheable di/bipole speaker with 2 tweeters and a single smaller 5.25" driver is just not going to have the same impact and frequency response as a matching 6.2 or 6.3 running twin 6.5 and 4" drivers. I've got plenty of listening time in on the ERD's and I would rather spend a few more bucks for a 6.2 or 6.3 pair for the added depth and frequency response and make sure they are positioned optimally for the room environment and listening positions. And as far as recommendations from online sites, I really only take them with a grain of salt(Especially professional reviews which rarely or if at all say a bad thing about ANY product). Most people that peruse the forums are new to HT or have limited experience in setting up multiple HT systems with vast amounts of equipment other than the few they may have set up for their own personal use over the course of the past few years. And as for telling Big Dan about my experience with the ERD's its really not necessary, they serve a niche function and his company is here to sell products that serve a wide variety of his target subjects, which include budget(which is a big one), space, preferences etc. So that being said, I fully expect him to push all his products in a good light. But Im sure if someone told him or anyone else at Emotiva that they were going to set up a serious HT room and use all 6.2's or 6.3's, I dont think they are going to say its a bad idea at all. Especially if budget or mounting options isn't a big concern............as Ive said in the past, the best sounding most immersive HT AV rooms Ive designed, sold and installed consisted of identical monitors/full range speakers for ALL channels.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Feb 13, 2010 14:14:05 GMT -5
BTW, awhile back you stated on this forum that a sub should only cover one octave from 20-40Hz. "Lets hear your logic......." on that one please. Yes, I always like to keep the low pass xover on a sub at around 40hz tops...........your going to have to go a bit more into detail on this one please.......and Ill be glad to respond back.
|
|
Animo
Emo VIPs
Gotta Love Me!!
Posts: 2,662
|
Post by Animo on Feb 13, 2010 15:48:45 GMT -5
Most things in life are a system of compromises. I have a 39 year old, 31 foot boat that is one of the best small fishing boats ever built. It has a full bow, with no flare, and a deep vee bottom. It will go out and bring me home in just about any conditions, I have been caught 40 miles off shore in 15 to 20 foot seas. I even have pictures of my friend's boat (same hull, different style) in some very nasty seas. However, because of the design, it is a very wet boat when going into head seas (taking the waves on the bow).
I make this comparison, because home theater and audio, can also be considered a basis of compromise. I agree that big theaters use mutiple arrays of similar speakers, even as many as 5 or 7 speakers just across the front sound stage, maybe 4 on each side of the theater, and four across the back. To do this in a small hiome theater is just not always practical. I have read the merits of having the same speaker and same power going to all channels of a home theater, but not everyone can do this. Those that can, well....power to them. The rest of us are left to compromise. That means a smaller horizontally oriented center channel, and dipole or bipole surrounds. Why is it that companies like THX, Dolby, Polk, B&W, Axiom, Klipsch, and even Emotiva, recommend or make such a surround speaker. It all lends itself to compromise. It enables us to get as close to the experience as possible.
Now, from personal experience, I used to have five identical speakers for my system a while back. They were all (DIY) 3 way bookshelf speakers. The biggest problem I had was that the sound didn't blend. I had started out with 4 speakers when Quad was all the rage. Everything was localized all the time. Only when I moved up to a home theater, did I realize how artificial it sounded. When I went to 7.1, I used the Emotiva 6.3 for center, and 4 ERDs for side and rear surrounds. As has been recommended for people that use bipole/dipoles, I placed my sides on L/R dipole, and set the back ERDs to bipole. I now experience some of the best home theater and multichannel audio I have heard anywhere in a long time, and I don't have anything esoteric, or overly expensive, and it sounds balanced, well integrated, and localized (when it needs to be)!!!
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Feb 13, 2010 16:02:32 GMT -5
Post by Ntrain42: ".....Re: EMO Speaker + Rythmik + Layout Question? « Reply #2 on Jan 27, 2010, 9:34am » Not worried about the D15SE's placement because each one will have its own adjustable PEQ, phase and xover. So regardless where you put the subs you should have no issue getting ruler flat bass from 20-40hz(and that is all they should be playing, one full octave)from them......" "ruler flat bass from 20-40hz(and that is all they should be playing, one full octave)from them......" Later you went on in the same post to say that you recommended low passing the sub at 40Hz and high passing the speaker at 70Hz. Both of these statements show your lack of understanding about proper sub blending in a system. Perhaps you simply misstated your thoughts. Ntrain my purpose here is not to get into a pissing contest with you as many others at the Lounge already have. This will be my last post to you until you respond to one of my posts again with misinformation. I didn't care for your comment about my logic, so I turned it around on you. I make errors and mistakes like all do and am glad to admit and correct my mistakes when someone sets me straight. I do try to be highly accurate with facts in my posts but do fall far short. Yes, there is disagreement about direct radiating speakers versus bipole/dipole designs for surround speakers. However, a very large majority agree on the benefits of the bipole/dipole design for the best surround sound. I wanted the OP to know that your statements were not in the mainstream, or even close, on this subject. You seem to have a lot of good knowledge and experience but also IMO spread a lot of misinformation here as you frequently and rather aggressively attack other people's posts. Yep, you quoted me 100% correct. 100%. When you crossover a sub low at say 40hz(from the example you took from me). And say a set of CAPABLE satallites at around 70hz, your still capable of getting a ruler flat frequency response most times(and this is backed up by an accurate RTA)give or take 10-20hz either way depending on the speaker in question. How? Well even though your crossing over a sub down low to say 40hz, your still getting musical/theatre information at 80hz and beyond. If your using say a 40hz sub low pass at 12db per octave, that means at 80hz your still getting sound information at 80hz(12db lower). And even at 160hz(24db down). Same for the high pass. If your crossing over say a set of monitors at say 70hz(your example again from my previous quote), then your still getting audio information all the way down at 35hz(12-48db depending on design of box and processor xover slope). So even though I recommend to UNDERLAP the xovers, the fact that you have a pair of speakers and a sub or subs still playing all the frequencies in between the low and highpass xover will naturally boost the signal in between the crossover points due to multiple speaker arrays playing the same information. Plus you have to add natural room gain at the said frequencies on top of this. So no, there was no misquote on my part. I have never run across a system where I had to set xover slopes in an identical fashion between the sub(or subs)and main speakers or even overlap them. I have always underlapped them. And a very accurate RTA will back this statement up. So now, what "misinformation" do I spread specifically?(Alot I might add) If your going to acuse me of that, at least give me examples, and since you added in "alot" there had better be numerous, literally countless posts proving that fact.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Feb 13, 2010 16:05:33 GMT -5
Now, from personal experience, I used to have five identical speakers for my system a while back. They were all (DIY) 3 way bookshelf speakers. The biggest problem I had was that the sound didn't blend. The sound didn't blend? This was "awhile back"? Like when?
|
|
Animo
Emo VIPs
Gotta Love Me!!
Posts: 2,662
|
Post by Animo on Feb 13, 2010 16:11:35 GMT -5
Now, from personal experience, I used to have five identical speakers for my system a while back. They were all (DIY) 3 way bookshelf speakers. The biggest problem I had was that the sound didn't blend. The sound didn't blend? This was "awhile back"? Like when? I said, when Quad was in vogue. that would put it at the early 70s to early 80s Even when I got my first home theater, and added the 5th speaker, it was no where near as good as it is today. Again, I mention the fact that it blends better and seems far more seamless, than it did back then....now there are better speakers, better electronics, better technology.
|
|
Animo
Emo VIPs
Gotta Love Me!!
Posts: 2,662
|
Post by Animo on Feb 13, 2010 16:18:04 GMT -5
And I will even say this, if your going to get 3 6.3's for the front 3 channels, get another pair of 6.3's for the surrounds as well. Keep all channel monitors the SAME. This is all well and good with the exception of placing the center. Are we laying it down horizontally? Having it match the left speaker vertically or the right speaker vertically for the front 3? This is the problem with mirrored or identical speakers unless they follow the D'appolito array of MTM. Otherwise, there is no possible way to keep everything the same. You can mirror the left/right front, side, or back, but the center will be either have to be horizontal (a compromise) or match one of the other front speakers...(again, a compromise, as I had mentioned in my earlier post), giving a less than perfect axial response.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Feb 13, 2010 16:21:23 GMT -5
The sound didn't blend? This was "awhile back"? Like when? I said, when Quad was in vogue. that would put it at the early 70s to early 80s Even when I got my first home theater, and added the 5th speaker, it was no where near as good as it is today. Again, I mention the fact that it blends better and seems far more seamless, than it did back then....now there are better speakers, better electronics, better technology. OK, so what your basically saying is that these 5 3 way speakers were done up in the late 70's/80's during the time when there was no dedicated surround format movies? As there wasn't back in the 70's and early 80's. Pro Logic encoding was poor at best. And Pro logic encoding became widespread available to the mass market home enthusiast when? Your "3 way" speakers didnt "blend" well because of: A. Poor speaker design and implementation. B. Poor materials, drivers and parts. C. Poor encoded media D. Poor electronics E. All of the above? So are you telling me all these new IMAX and stadium commercial movie theatres with up to date electronics and direct radiating speaker arrays don't blend well when you pay your $20 bucks for popcorn and movie ticket pass? Trying to compare experience and technology from the 70's and 80's to today is absolutely 100% absurd.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Feb 13, 2010 16:28:39 GMT -5
And I will even say this, if your going to get 3 6.3's for the front 3 channels, get another pair of 6.3's for the surrounds as well. Keep all channel monitors the SAME. This is all well and good with the exception of placing the center. Are we laying it down horizontally? Having it match the left speaker vertically or the right speaker vertically for the front 3? This is the problem with mirrored or identical speakers unless they follow the D'appolito array of MTM. Otherwise, there is no possible way to keep everything the same. You can mirror the left/right front, side, or back, but the center will be either have to be horizontal (a compromise) or match one of the other front speakers...(again, a compromise, as I had mentioned in my earlier post), giving a less than perfect axial response. And by laying a 6.3 down on its side, where do you think the off axis response starts to decay? 10 degrees? 15 degrees? 20 degrees? 30? Take for yourself a 6.2 or 6.3 and run some chalk line from the center of the speaker to where your going to sit for the movies. Set up properly its not going to be off by more than a few degrees from your ears if at all. Your idea about off axis response being severly altered is poor at best. And if you think that just a few degrees off the center axis of the speaker is going to alter the sound significantly, then the speaker itself is of a VERY POOR DESIGN. A very good direct radiating box speaker itself will be flat off axis by at least 20-30 degrees.
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Feb 14, 2010 7:19:56 GMT -5
Yes, there is disagreement about direct radiating speakers versus bipole/dipole designs for surround speakers. What I really like about the ERD-1s is the fact that the woofer is direct radiating, when in bipole mode, it seems to act like a direct speaker with a wide dispersion. For the price, I think it is unbeatable. For me to go to 4 x 6.3s for surround (which I may do when I get my dedicated theatre) would be a huge additional expense and would just not work in the current small room. If budget is an issue, I think a choice of ERD-1s and spending the saving versus the 6.2 (for example) on a better sub would yield a much better experience than 6.2s and a sub-par sub. There is ever a compromise and I think the ERD-1 is a really good compromise. I'm also thinking that if I do get more 6.3s for the dedicated cinema room, I would still likely use ERD-1s for height channels as I think you really do want that area very dispersed, ERD-1s as front (and potentially also rear) height would seem like a perfect match.
|
|
|
Post by bfisher on Feb 14, 2010 22:10:41 GMT -5
I love my ERD surrounds - they blend extremely well and have a great sound. When sound moves around the room - it moves exactly how I expect. They create a big, wide sound and yet very direct when needed. Plus I love how well they mount to the wall - they look great and unobtrusive and like they are supposed to be mounted on the wall. Mounting 4 more 6.2s or 6.3s for sides and rears would look odd (I think).
Watched Waterhorse with the kids tonight and it worked the surrounds a ton - and they sounded just perfect. Two thumbs up. Wind and waves filled the room - and when the waterhorse was running around the room knocking things over - you could hear exactly were he was.
If using direct speakers for surrounds were that much better, I suspect we'd see more press recommending this and more speaker companies making them. Regardless - I think they sound amazing and would never hesitate to recommend them for anyone wanting to use surround speakers.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Feb 14, 2010 23:12:31 GMT -5
I love my ERD surrounds - they blend extremely well and have a great sound. When sound moves around the room - it moves exactly how I expect. They create a big, wide sound and yet very direct when needed. Plus I love how well they mount to the wall - they look great and unobtrusive and like they are supposed to be mounted on the wall. Mounting 4 more 6.2s or 6.3s for sides and rears would look odd (I think). Watched Waterhorse with the kids tonight and it worked the surrounds a ton - and they sounded just perfect. Two thumbs up. Wind and waves filled the room - and when the waterhorse was running around the room knocking things over - you could hear exactly were he was. If using direct speakers for surrounds were that much better, I suspect we'd see more press recommending this and more speaker companies making them. Regardless - I think they sound amazing and would never hesitate to recommend them for anyone wanting to use surround speakers. Actually alot of companies and sites recommend direct radiating speakers. Simple point, if di/bipole odd driver configed speakers are so great, then why not use em for the front main speakers or center channel too? Simple logic. Again if there are limited space and mounting options, or even budget issues, I can uderstand their use, but otherwise I'd recommend matching up all the channels with identical monitors. As good as you think your own setup sounds, using identical monitors for all channels is going to sound and integrate better.
|
|
|
Post by bfisher on Feb 15, 2010 9:09:29 GMT -5
my opinion (all I have to go on) is that bi/dipoles are used for a different purpose. You wouldn't want them up front because you want accurate localization. It would sound odd to have a diffuse sound up front.
However, the rears/sides - it sounds right to be more diffuse because rear/sides are generally providing ambiance and effects. When is the last time someone spoke through a rear/side speaker? It's wind noise, guns, explosions, music, etc.
I will be reworking my office setup soon and will try using my ERMs as rears again. When I tried it the first time - I didn't see any benefit... but maybe I didn't live with it enough to get used to it.
So in a 7.1 setup, are you recommending the sides also be direct?
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis.ie on Feb 15, 2010 9:23:59 GMT -5
Actually the ERD-1s work very well for dialogue "effects" too - we were watching Ratatouille (BD) the other day and my GF suddenly pauses the movie and says "shh, I think I hear someone in the kitchen". It was the TV set in the movie where the voice-over was talking about the life of the chef. (The kitchen opens on to the theatre room and we have a semi-detached house and we sometimes hear the neigbours through the kitchen wall). Saw the Time Traveler's wife last night - there is a scene in it where the camera spins around the room and there is a loud clock in the room - you could hear the clock move smoothly around - almost like it was crawling along the walls. across behind and down the other wall - eerie! Back surround (matrixed) is still on a receiver amp too.
|
|