Full range rear speakers


I am interested in others opinions who have tried HT setups with rear full range speakers verses "book shelf" speakers.

All direct radiating speakers. Was the extra money worth the over all effect, i.e.. more presence in the rear, or just roll the small speakers lows off to the subs and call it even?

Thanks
Marty
marty9876
This is a good thread and brings up a long debated topic: Full-range in the rear or not? My opinion is that if you can do it (meaning, afford it), then full-range in ALL channels is the best solution and the most enjoyable. One of the problems that can occur, if running the rear as "small" and using a sub to output LF, is the issue of LF directionality. Meaning, if you have let's say restricted LF rear speakers, and you set them up to crossover at 80Hz (kind of the standard), then it is VERY likely that LF notes intended to be perceived as occuring in the rear will in fact seem as though they are coming from the front. Yes, I know LF is supposed to be non-directional (depending on frequency of course), but what most folks seem to forget is that this is in an ideal world. In the real world, you will have certain objects vibrate in your room at given resonance frequencies which even though not coming directly from the sub itself (shouldn't be a problem in a well designed sub), will cause serious directionality issues. This is in addition to notes above ~25Hz that can be localized in and of themselves. So, what the heck am I saying? I don't know, I forgot ;-) Seriously, if you can run full-range all around do it. At the least, run two subs, one in the rear and one in the front.

Marty...The Ospreys would be overkill for rears unless you really have the extra money lying around. The Swifts TRULY do go down to 35Hz, so you wouldn't get the lowest notes in the rear, but it should be sufficient. In addition, the Swifts are front-ported, so you can put them right up against a wall (disclaimer: I am a dealer for Meadowlark).

Best Regards...Mike - Father & Son Audio
Mike,

A dealer saying something would be an overkill, this must be a first. But then again, I would say most of us have warped perception of what an over kill is. At least I do.

The one thing I do not like about the Swifts is the tweeter height. They are truly a great speaker, I have a pair in my room as demos. I was very impressed with the sound.

With the Swifts, and the Kestrels and Shearwaters too basically, the tweeter height is just 4-6 inches too low for me. I could prop them up on blocks or something, I don't know I still might. The are cheaper.

The biggest down side, they(all three) looks like toys to me. I mean, matchsticks.... It is all relative, with a 7ch Sim Titan amp sitting on a lone amp stand in the room, most things look small. I am way too American, bigger is better mentality.

Thanks
Marty
Marty,

The Swifts certainly have a small stature, but boy is the sound BIG. I do understand what you are saying though.

I am of the same frame of mind, BIGGER is better ;-) Just buy Talon Khorus X for all channels, that should solve your size concerns ;-)

Your other concern about tweeter height is certainly a valid one. What you might consider is the Meadowlark Swallow monitor (and place them on their stands, which would make the tweeter about 4" higher than the Swift tweeter). The Swallow is sonically very similar to the Swift with less bass response (50Hz vs. 35Hz). Then purchase a sub for the rear to bring in the LF.

Also, as you mentioned, there is no reason that you could not place the Swifts on a raised block, platform, etc.

How do you like your Titan? We use one in the showroom for theater and it is a wonderful amp (HT and 2ch).

Best Regards...Mike - Father & Son Audio
So in the end what would sound better? "Fuller" range Ospreys, or the Swallows with a sub? I have an unused sub, HSU VFT-2, just sitting around. I have always thought running the speaker high level lines into the sub and using its crossover, or low level signal single ended into the sub, but I always thought that was the "cheaper" and lower quality way of doing things.

I am so confused, by this whole bass issue. I'll just take Sean's approach and have two/four/six of everything..:) I do have stereo subs, and I am wondering why. With all "large" speakers on the cross over settings it kinda takes the fun out of the right left deal. But the localization and response issues are still very valid reasons for stereo subs.

Sim stuff, I have all three. It sucks.... Love hate deal. It is very quirky and can be hard to use at times. The 7ch amp is so much bigger than the 5ch and currently I am only using 5 channels. I guess I should buy the rear center, not like much information comes from it thou. I have been planning on getting the Petrel(what ever small center is called).

Thanks for the input. I just would like to do things right.

Marty
Marty,

Depends on what the application will be. If you are going to listen to a lot of multichannel music, then you might want the higher quality bass that the Osprey will provide, over the HSU (great sub by the way, bass just won't be as fast and musical as the Osprey). If on the other hand you will be watching more movies than multichannel music, save some money and go with the HSU and the Swallows.

One last thought to really get you confused, have you considered the Meadowlark Owl Bipole/Dipole to use as the surround channels?

FYI...The Meadowlark center channel that sonically matches the Swift/Osprey/Swallow is called the Swan...You aren't the only one that gets confused by all of these bird names by the way ;-)

Best Regards...Mike - Father & Son Audio