Sub's or surrounds first?

[ric888]

Hi guys,

just need some advise or opinions concerning the title itself.

Q: If you are in a tight buget as of now where would you go first?

option 1: Subwoofer - because it helps alot producing the real effect in movies? and music? and more depht and impact in sound...
Just use any speaker i still have for surround...
or
option 2: Surrounds that would complement the fronts so that proper timber matching would be achived to produce a seamless soundstage?
and just use my old existing chepo sub...

thanks guys for any input.

[ric888]

BTW: guy's

Option would be is get the 601s3(BNEW)/or 3mnt old 602 s3 of my friend at the same price.

or

Extend the buget and get the velo CHT12R?

Curent setup is 602s3 with the LCR 600.

Thanks

[PewterTA]

I vote surrounds...

As much as a sub does bring the action to life, the surrounds can enhance a movie experience 10x. Remember in a typical 5.1 or 7.1 setup, the .1 doesn't equate to a whole lot.

The sub will definitely give you a feel of the movie, but stuff flying around your talking from behind you and panning towards the front, it all equates to more than what a sub will do for you.

[htsteve]

Option 1 - SUB

ric888,

Option 1. Since you have bookshelf speakers, I would strongly recommend a quality sub. This will make a far bigger impact in either HT or 2 channel. For the rears, use anything you still have to hold you over until you get new ones.

Keep you eye on Audiogon and the Pawn Shop. You might find a deal in there for a sub and/or some rear speakers.

Finally, you may want to keep your cheapo sub and if possible, use it as a sub for the rear speakers. I know a guy who did this and was happy with the results.

Hope this helps.

[ric888]

Woooh!!! Oposite Point of views!


HMMMMMM!

[ric888]

Any body wanna go for the 3rd?

[Pez]

Any body wanna go for the 3rd?

Both options!

Tough call. If you happy with the bass you have now go for the surrounds. A seamless surround effect is a wonderful thing. And it might be better to save up for a killer sub. The one you listed you is fine but there are a lot options for subs (like SVS).

[Fife]

Sub first.

I would make choose SMALL for all speakers in a HT setup unless you have large woofers like the N802/N801.

[B&W 700 Guy]

Sub all the way... :T

[Sim reality]

Sub, After you heard the deep rumble it's hard to go back

[PewterTA]

To me, the sub you want to get, you'll spend a lot more on than the surrounds you want.. So go for the surrounds first, then do a ton of research to find the best sub you can get, I'd suggest going for something in the $700 - $2000 to get the best feel from your sub.

[lobato]

Keep in mind how close your neighbors are. If LFE is going to be a problem and you end up almost never using the sub, then surrounds would definitely be better.

[audioqueso]

Sub. Surrounds would make your music come alive, a sub would. I had this discussion a year ago and went with the sub. I'm about to buy my surrounds next months. No regrets in my order of upgrades.

[beehive]

i will definitely go for SUB... :T

[Stevebez]

Sub gives you full spectrum of sound field - surrounds give you full sound stage (in 5.1+) ... So in my opinion start with full sound spectrum then add the sound stage...

Also when listening in stereo with a sub (in 2.1) you will have a more complete sound spectrum especially with shelf speakers.

I think surrounds are necesary though ... but spend more on the sub than spend bundles on the surrounds... The surrounds carry so little TOTAL sound - albeit important to the effect. So you dont need to be spending huge cash (initially) on these units.

To give u an idea my surrounds are - relatively - el cheapo Boston MicroII's , my fronts 803D's my sub velo DD12.

But perhaps more importantly will your room accomodate a 5.0 setup well or a 2.1 ? And what do you do most - watch movies or listen to music? If its movies then go 5.0 - if music I would go 2.1 ... some may feel it to be the opposite though.

[ric888]

Actually, i have options for both, i still have old cheapo bookshelves that i could use for the surrounds or i could still use my old cheapo sub from my old setup, that by the way makes my room already vibrate and my mom get mad, if ever i will be going for the sub, the only reason is for better lower end and cleaner, quality bass output. in regards with my neighbors, the would'nt mind. most of them also play loud, so i could say "QUITs"! hehehe!

[style]

Personally i'm in accord with PewterTA,

surrounds 601s03 and if possible a small sub or wait for a good sub.

[Race Car Driver]

After going throgh this same ordeal in the last 2-3 months I would have to say sub.

I ENJOY having a sub, not only for moives, but for 2ch. its nice to have a center and surrounds for multichannel, but the sub gets the most use, and is more enjoyable.

I vote sub for sure....

[dknightd]

I'd just hook up the sub and surrounds you have now. Then decide which, if either, need to be upgraded. I'm a music person, so my (seperate) HT setup leaves much to be desired - i.e. speakers don't match, and no sub (but I do have full range R&L). To be honest I don't notice the rear surrounds do not match, and, I don't really miss the what I think is gratuitous bass effects. YMMV

[ric888]

Personally i'm in accord with PewterTA,

surrounds 601s03 and if possible a small sub or wait for a good sub.

style, thanks for the concern bro but the reason why ill be going for another 602s3 is because i could get a second pair for the same price as for the 601.

[Clepto]

I went with sub first in the same situation, but I had an old crappy pair of speakers I was using for surrounds.

I was actually using 'crap' surrounds for about 3 years before finally getting a pair of 600s3's

[ric888]

What do yuo mean "crap" clepto, as in just like those tiny speakers given out together with mini-components? or "crap" because of the brand?

[RebelMan]

After going throgh this same ordeal in the last 2-3 months I would have to say sub.

I ENJOY having a sub, not only for moives, but for 2ch. its nice to have a center and surrounds for multichannel, but the sub gets the most use, and is more enjoyable.

I vote sub for sure....

RCD you needed a sub to go with your 802's??? :E

[steve998]

For your info I have the 601S3 as fronts LCR60 as centre, 600S3 as rear matrixed 6.1 speakers (put close together) and KEF diapole rear surrounds.

IMHO the biggest improvement i had was adding my rel sub. I ran my system for 6 months without a sub.

A sub is essential for movies, not just for recreating high sound pressure levels but the low rumbling quiet stuff that you dont realise is there (until u disconnect the sub).

I also found that adding a sub took the pressure off the speakers (which only go down to 60 - 70 hz) and also the amp. Dont forget that active subs take the pressure off the amp in producing LOW LFE. Even a REL Q150 / BK x200 is sufficient to load a room with bass.

Surround speakers are nice to have. A sub is essential

(PS I tried the LCR600 v the LCR60. IMHO there was a difference between the two spearks BUT only at higher SPL. How loud do u have to go to justify the much larger speaker? I also tried recently a 6,1 sytem with only 600s3 speakers and a LCR60 speaker and a HUGE sub. Sounded better than my system!! and cost less!!

Why should anyone bother going for large speakers when your sub is taking over at 80hz?)

[Kal Rubinson]

RCD you needed a sub to go with your 802's??? :E

I did. :T

Kal

[PewterTA]

802s frequency response is only down to ~34Hz, that's a lot of information that the speakers can't produce (especially for movies). ...and yes I know technically they will play lower than that do to the roll-off curve...but this is where a sub really comes in. It can add a whole lot to the sound in the lower Hz (<30Hz).

Ric, do you listen to music more or watch movies more? That should determine your sub or surrounds issue. Unless you listen to a lot of DVD-A/Multi-ch SACDs, then a sub would work out better.

Course since you already have a sub and get complaints about it...adding a better sub will probably only increase those complaints. lol.

Since you can get a good deal on the 602s, I'd (still) be tempted to go that route first and save up for a much better sub (I know you'll be spending 2-3x as much as the 602s on a sub). If you have that now, then go for the sub!

I personally didn't have a sub for almost a 9 months with my 604s and (because of their decent extension) didn't really feel the need. Now that I have a sub, I love it and would not get rid of it. However, with watching a lot of movies, the extra feel from the surrounds was something I wanted more than just adding to floor/seat/room rumbling. Also, since I do not participate in 2.1 listening (straight by-pass 2.0 for me) the sub does not get any real use at all in my musical listening. For me, even with setting the crossover at 40Hz, I still felt that the sub didn't add enough for what I lost out of the mains. But that's just me, I don't tend to listen to a lot of pipe-organ music to really effectively use the sub. So for the most part, the sub is only used for movie viewing (which I do a lot of).

You just have to decide the order of importance on what you do the most and what will add the most pleasure for you.

-Dan

[RebelMan]

I did. :T

Kal

RCD made a reference to using a sub with two-channel as well as movies. Movies I get but stereo? The notoriety of the 802D is that it can be somewhat bass heavy. Are you using a sub for two-channel also? By the way, what are your room dimensions, if you please? I am debating the 803D or the 802D and in the case of my room's space size may matter.

[Kal Rubinson]

I didn't get the sub because I really needed it but more as an experiment. Frankly, the more I play with acoustics, the more I realize that ideal placements for imaging/balance and for bass rarely coincide.

The room is 15'w and 26' long. Open at the listener's end to an entrance foyer and dining room. Oh, and although it is a music-only system, it is multichannel.

Kal

[Race Car Driver]

I could use the sub because my room is horrible. (15x18ish IIRC, open to the kitchen/dining room to the right of the listening position)

Oh well.... well, that and I got a deal I couldnt pass up from work.

Next step, room treatment.

[jayhawk75]

I didn't get the sub because I really needed it but more as an experiment. Frankly, the more I play with acoustics, the more I realize that ideal placements for imaging/balance and for bass rarely coincide.

The room is 15'w and 26' long. Open at the listener's end to an entrance foyer and dining room. Oh, and although it is a music-only system, it is multichannel.

Kal

it would be nice to hear what sub you are currently experimenting with

[Kal Rubinson]

JL Audio Fathom f113

Kal

[WI Rotel]

Another vote for sub. The sub is not only for movies, if well matched you will find it indespensible for audio too. Surrounds ought not to be neglected, but the sub is much more important IMO. Many subs that reviewers regard highly for movies are actually quite poor for audio. BW subs work wonders for both. Be cognizant that the one sub solution is only true for small listening environments, for bigger areas 2 subs is much more appropriate and sonically satisfying. If your mains are bookshelf speakers your sub will need to be crossed over at a pretty high frequency 60-100hz those frequencies are easily "directional" although less than frequencies over one Khz you can easily figure out the general area of the room in which it sits.

[Clepto]

What do yuo mean "crap" clepto, as in just like those tiny speakers given out together with mini-components? or "crap" because of the brand?

Bose AM-5 Series 1 speakers, yeah baby!

(In reference to what my 'crap' surrounds were before they got replaced with a pair of DM 600s3's

[ric888]

Lol!

[Clepto]

JL Audio Fathom f113

Kal

JL does HT now? I have a nice JL sub in my car... (: