Bookshelf Speakers for Vinyl AND Home Theater?

[Teej]

Looking at upgrading speakers and not sure how to proceed. The speakers I have now are the left and right front speakers and center channel from a Sony Home Theater in-a-box I bought in 2008, so this upgrade has been a long time coming.

They are connected to a less-than-a-week-old Sony STRDH770 receiver and a Polk powered subwoofer. I also have a Technics SL-Q202 connected via a Schiit Mani. This is in the living room where it also functions as a home theater (my budget audiophile setup for music is in the man cave).

The 10-year-old Sony speakers sound okay, but I know they could sound a lot better particularly when listening to music (which I usually do in one of the 2-channel music settings, but I like to mix it up). I've been looking at the Elac B6 Debut and the Wharfedale Diamond 220's, but I'm willing to spend a little more. Before I throw money at this, is this an upgrade I can even do?

Long question short: are most bookshelf speaker pairs meant to function as a standalone system without a center channel and separate powered subwoofer? Or should I be looking at speakers that are meant to be in a multi-speaker configuration? Or am I overthinking this?

Thanks!

 

[jobrewer1983]

Looking at upgrading speakers and not sure how to proceed. The speakers I have now are the left and right front speakers and center channel from a Sony Home Theater in-a-box I bought in 2008, so this upgrade has been a long time coming.

They are connected to a less-than-a-week-old Sony STRDH770 receiver and a Polk powered subwoofer. I also have a Technics SL-Q202 connected via a Schiit Mani. This is in the living room where it also functions as a home theater (my budget audiophile setup for music is in the man cave).

The 10-year-old Sony speakers sound okay, but I know they could sound a lot better particularly when listening to music (which I usually do in one of the 2-channel music settings, but I like to mix it up). I've been looking at the Elac B6 Debut and the Wharfedale Diamond 220's, but I'm willing to spend a little more. Before I throw money at this, is this an upgrade I can even do?

Long question short: are most bookshelf speaker pairs meant to function as a standalone system without a center channel and separate powered subwoofer? Or should I be looking at speakers that are meant to be in a multi-speaker configuration? Or am I overthinking this?

Thanks!

Well... some "bookshelf" speakers are designed to be main (front) speakers, paired with a sub/center... some are designed to be stand alone bookshelf, or stand mounted, others are satellite speakers (rear/side).

The Elac you mentioned can be stand alone, or paired... most modern bookshelfs will sound better with a sub.. so they say... I don't think it's needed..

I've been on a bookshelf set up for a good few years now, a good set of bookshelves can sound good if properly placed. Don't get me wrong, nothing takes place of large speakers, but in some areas/rooms bookshelfs can be a great set up.

All the above you mentioned would be a good upgrade to the sonys.

Also check CL, you may find some good speakers for not so much green.

I've found many great sets of bookshelfs for under 200 bucks... picked up a set of Axioms for almost nothing...

look up B&W also Snell on CL they tend to show up often.

Good luck with it!

Kind Regards,
John

 

[Erik Tracy]

There are several speaker manufacturers that offer 'matched' bookshelf and center speakers.

In the price range you are looking at for Elacs and Wharfedale, I'd also give a look at Polk's RTiA or Signature Series.

 

[HiFiJeff]

Well I am in your same situation. I have a living room system that I use for everything and a dedicated home theater set up, or at least I am working on it.
But I decided to go with the ELAC UNIFI-UB5's for my living room and am EXTREMELY impressed! I was at RMAF a couple of weeks ago with a pocket full of cash ready to spend a couple of grand on a pair of speakers and popped into the Dolby Atmos ELAC room and left with a big smile on my face. Ran into an ELAC dealer and he had a pair of the UNIFI-UB5's and he sold them to me for $300! So instead of spending $2000, I spent $300. I have been impressed with the ELAC's so much that I almost bought another set for the theater room. They play well above their $500 retail price and of course destroy most speakers at $300. And the bass they produce is amazing! Tight, controlled, punchy and deep. Can't believe that much bass comes out of them. The only time I use my SVS sub is when watching movies/shows, playing video games or music with very deep bass. But for most music, I go direct mode on my AVR and cut out the sub. They sound incredible. I wouldn't hesitate to spend a little more and step up to the UNI-FI series.

 

[Lucky Pierre]

Might not be your cup o' tea, but I am running a pair of AR-4x as the fronts on my NAD T748. They do double duty as part of the HT system and for stereo listening when I stream FM or listen to the turntable. They sound wonderful for both stereo listening and as part of the surround system.

 

[JoeESP9]

Looking at upgrading speakers and not sure how to proceed. The speakers I have now are the left and right front speakers and center channel from a Sony Home Theater in-a-box I bought in 2008, so this upgrade has been a long time coming. Thanks!

Around these parts speakers from an HTIB tend to be less than desirable. Just about any speaker anyone suggests, bookshelf or not, will probably sound better.

 

[bigx5murf]

Is there a space constraint where you need bookshelf sized speakers? I bought into the whole small speaker fad, and for a long time just kept collecting bookshelf sized speakers (and they kept getting bigger), a few really well regarded one's as well. When I finally gave towers a try, I can't go back. Bookshelf sized are for desktop near field use only now for me. As far as floor space is concerned, towers take up about the same as bookshelf on good stands. Considering you want to stick with two speakers, I think that's even more reason to look at towers. With your budget you may have to go used, and invest some time searching and researching. But I think it's worth the effort.

 

[nfafan]

are most bookshelf speaker pairs meant to function as a standalone system without a center channel and separate powered subwoofer?[/B] Or should I be looking at speakers that are meant to be in a multi-speaker configuration? Or am I overthinking this?

Thanks!

In the early 70s, "our" bookshelves tended to be large - like the OLA, KLH-5s for example - and so subwoofers weren't as "needed" in 2.0 setups. With many of today's bookshelves using 6" woofers or less, such as with Pioneer BS22s - adding a sub to create a 2.1 setup is HIGHLY recommended unless these are your desktop PC speakers.

 

[Teej]

In the early 70s, "our" bookshelves tended to be large - like the OLA, KLH-5s for example - and so subwoofers weren't as "needed" in 2.0 setups. With many of today's bookshelves using 6" woofers or less, such as with Pioneer BS22s - adding a sub to create a 2.1 setup is HIGHLY recommended unless these are your desktop PC speakers.

I'm glad to hear it - I like my sub!

 

[Teej]

Is there a space constraint where you need bookshelf sized speakers? I bought into the whole small speaker fad, and for a long time just kept collecting bookshelf sized speakers (and they kept getting bigger), a few really well regarded one's as well. When I finally gave towers a try, I can't go back. Bookshelf sized are for desktop near field use only now for me. As far as floor space is concerned, towers take up about the same as bookshelf on good stands. Considering you want to stick with two speakers, I think that's even more reason to look at towers. With your budget you may have to go used, and invest some time searching and researching. But I think it's worth the effort.

There are size restraints in addition to the tiny, grubby hands of a 19-month-old to contend with. Otherwise I would be all about some sick towers. Maybe in a few years...

 

[Teej]

So after exhaustive research I finally decided the best candidate for my setup was a pair of Elac Debut B5’s. Lucky for me the most well-known local Audio/Video specialist in the New Orleans metro area, Alterman Audio (“for some sound advice!”) who famously used to air a commercial featuring spokesman Muhammad Ali (seriously – it’s on Youtube) had the Elacs on display for auditioning. I cut out of work early and headed over; and having read all the glowing reviews including one from Michael Fremer himself, I was fully expecting to go home with them as my new speakers.

I was delighted to be helped by no other than local celebrity-of-sorts Henry Alterman, proprietor and audiophile who everyone in this city knows from his extremely dated but legendary commercials. He played the Elacs for me and they sounded good. He agreed the reviews are glowing and they look really cool, but I could tell he was about drop some knowledge on me. “Take a look at these, though,” he said, and walked me over to a pair of Boston Acoustics A25’s.

You guys, these things straight up blew the Elac’s away. After a few minutes of an Al Hirt recording (that Henry had recorded himself decades ago), he went over a bit of history about each company and his personal preferences. As I listened my brain was fighting my ears. The Elacs are supposed to be some of the best speakers for the money around, but compared with the Boston Acoustics they sounded – and I’m using Henry’s word here because he completely nailed it - “dull.”

I went back and forth between the speakers a few times just to be sure, adjusting my position, volume, trying different songs, etc. But it was all moot at this point. I was there over an hour (past closing even), and never once did the Elacs give me a reason to choose them over the Boston Acoustics.

So I bought the BA’s, took them home, hooked them up, and invited the most audiophile buddy I have over. We tried different kinds of music, movies, vinyl, played with the receiver settings – just generally putting the speakers through their paces and getting them nice and warm/broken in. But honestly they were singing right from the start.

As an avid Internet researcher when it comes to big purchases, I was flabbergasted in the difference in sound quality between the Internet-famous Elacs and the Boston Acoustic pair about which I had seen almost nothing during my research. I know speaker preference is extremely subjective, but this is one case my exhaustive online research failed me utterly. Now I don’t know what to believe.

The final piece of equipment I feel compelled to upgrade in the short-term is my 10-year old Sony HTIB center channel. I need a low-profile one to replace it as my TV sits quite low on the furniture it inhabits, so I’m leaning towards the Polk Signature Series S35 Slim. Anyone have any experience with this one? It’s a beauty.

And I no longer trust online reviews.

 

[bigx5murf]

Center channels can't be matched to front left right speakers randomly. At the very least, they'll all need to use the same tweeter. If there isn't a specifically matched center from the same manufacturer, you're better off not running a center, or buying the a single of the same left right speakers, and possibly building a lower profile cabinet for it.

Looks like the matching center for your speakers are the discontinued Boston A225C

 

[Teej]

Center channels can't be matched to front left right speakers randomly. At the very least, they'll all need to use the same tweeter. If there isn't a specifically matched center from the same manufacturer, you're better off not running a center, or buying the a single of the same left right speakers, and possibly building a lower profile cabinet for it.

Really? I was told it was okay. Boston Acoustics has an A Series matching center, but it would stick up over my TV like three inches. Maybe I should raise the TV...

Will the Polk not work? How can I tell if the tweeters will be friends?

 

[bigx5murf]

The big problem with a center speaker is once you set it up. Your receiver will pump something like 75% of all information through it, and just use your LR mostly for panning effects. The sound of those effects will change as it pans unless your front three are matched. Not using a center, you'll still get what's called a "phantom center", created by the stereo image. The benefit of a center is when you sit to the extreme left and right sides, you'll still hear what's coming out of the center the same. While if you just had left right fronts, sitting to the sides means the info from one speaker gets to you before the other, so skewed "phantom center".

With rear surrounds and subs, it's ok

 

[Teej]

The big problem with a center speaker is once you set it up. Your receiver will pump something like 75% of all information through it, and just use your LR mostly for panning effects. The sound of those effects will change as it pans unless your front three are matched. Not using a center, you'll still get what's called a "phantom center", created by the stereo image. The benefit of a center is when you sit to the extreme left and right sides, you'll still hear what's coming out of the center the same. While if you just had left right fronts, sitting to the sides means the info from one speaker gets to you before the other, so skewed "phantom center".

With rear surrounds and subs, it's ok

But that wouldn't be the case in a 2-channel field, right? It makes perfect sense (and is very much the case) in a home theater or expanded sound field setting, but I primarily play music in 2.1, that being the two front speakers and the sub. The center doesn't even enter into it.

And to be honest, I'm pretty indifferent about surround and high-fidelity home theater sound for movies, TV, and games. All I'm interested in is the music sounding good. I do like to jump around a bit so there will be times when I use the center channel, but for the most part I'm in 2-channel mode sometimes with Sony's 2-channel Audio Enhancer turned on.

 

[bigx5murf]

Then I see no reason for you to be worried about looking for a center in the first place.

 

[Teej]

Wow - no center. Seems like a bold step. We still watch a lot of movies and TV, and there is some off-center seating directly in front of the left speaker. I don't think I'm prepared to give up on a good center channel yet - I just don't want it to interfere with the music.

 

[bigx5murf]

The I suggest trying it first. I've switched between having one and not having one all the time. All it takes is a few settings on the AVR. When I'm by myself, I prefer no center. When my wife's watching with me, I prefer having the center enabled.

 

[nfafan]

Wow - no center. Seems like a bold step. We still watch a lot of movies and TV, and there is some off-center seating directly in front of the left speaker. I don't think I'm prepared to give up on a good center channel yet - I just don't want it to interfere with the music.

Adding a center - and using AVR settings to "remove" it - can be the best way to enjoy the sound. Sometimes the material sounds fine in 2.1, sometimes better in 3.1 or even 5.1 if you want something bolder than the phantom center.

 

[Bodyblue]

99.999999999% of TV and movies that are encoded for 5.1etc sound better with a center channel. 2 channel can sound ok, but they simply cant and dont sound better than with a center. If one is not watching shows encoded for surround sound then it is no big deal but few, if any, are. A center channel is better if matched, BUT, as long as they are close then that is better than no center channel.

I have never heard the BA speakers you got, but I am not surprised they sound better than the Elacs. The Elacs are some of the most over rated speakers. I fully expected to be blown away by them when I heard them for the first time a few months ago and they sound, wait for it.....ok. My old Polk RT25i sound better to me and my Polk TSX110s sound about the same as the Elacs. Add to the fact that the Elac are searingly ugly just made my disappointment even worse.

Like a poster above says, the center does most of the front duty (as it should) for shows encoded for surround (3.1/5.1). Since I far prefer two channel for music, I have two systems in the front room, one for music and one for surround. I placed the big center low and angled it up and even though the front main HT speakers are mounted low it sounds fine because the dialog etc from the front channel comes from the center. I have rear surrounds and a sub by the couch. I know not everybody wants two systems but it was best for me. Almost every system has some compromises so dont worry about not having a fully matched system.Sony receiver was one I was thinking about getting, it is a solid choice for HT.