Home theater speaker buying tips

A music-oriented home theater speaker system from Dynaudio.

(Credit: Dynaudio)

First thing, determine your system's priorities. Will you watch movies or listen to music? Most folks do one or the other.

Since more home theater speaker buyers watch movies than listen to music, I'll start there.

It's hardly an overstatement to claim movie-oriented home theater systems succeed or fail based on their center channel's performance and sound quality. The center speaker delivers virtually all the dialog and it can, depending on the mix, convey upward of 80 percent of a movie's soundtrack. The center speaker has a big job.

So invest 30 percent of your 5.1, 6.1, or 7.1 system budget on the center speaker, the Center Centric HT approach. As always, when it comes to sound quality, size matters. Bigger centers tend to sound better than small ones.

The subwoofer is the next most important player in a home theater sound system. Invest the next 30 percent of your dollars on the sub. The sub is largely responsible for home theater impact and power.

That leaves 40 percent of the budget for the front and surround left and right speakers. Of that, I'd put more bucks into the front speakers than the surrounds.

What I'm describing here is a little unconventional, but it's predicated on the belief that the best possible sounding center and sub are crucial for home theater performance. I'm also assuming all the speakers and probably the sub are from the same manufacturer.

For more music oriented home theaters the priorities are reversed. Fifty percent or more of the budget goes for the front left and right speakers, which should be large enough to produce bass without the aid of a subwoofer. The remaining budget is spent on the center and surround speakers (more on the center than surrounds). It's the "Stereo Plus Three HT" approach.

After all, music is mostly stereo, so it makes sense to put the lion's share of your dollars where they'll do the most good: The left and right front speakers.

Lastly, the 50/50 movies and music system. Evenly distribute your budget and buy the more typical "matched" system. Thing is, it won't sound as good as either the movie or music systems described above, when doing what they were designed to do.

I make my living writing about audio and reviewing tons of gear every year. My opinions about speaker sound quality are covered in the reviews. Asking advice from me or anybody else about speaker sound quality is like asking what's better, chocolate or strawberry? There's no definitive answer, it's a matter of taste.

With speakers and subs you really have to listen for yourself. That, or buy the ones I like the most.

7/19/09 Update: I'm happy to see some Audiophiliac readers have brought up the concept of stereo home theater, which works equally well for music and movies. I've been writing about HT 2.0 for years, and blogged about it last on April 4, 2008. HT 2.0 is an alternative approach, ideal for small bedroom, den or office systems. More speakers are just more speakers, but better speakers sound better. It's really as simple as that.

[minimalist]

Great information! Thanks.

I am in the market for a new speaker system and I was truly lost with all the choices. I've been eyeing an Aperion matched system (Intimus 5B Harmony HD http://www.aperionaudio.com/product/Intimus-5B-Harmony-HD,119,71,273.aspx) but maybe now I'll look at building a custom system with slightly larger left and right channels since I listen to a bit more music than movies (60/40).

Anybody have any competitors in the 2000-2100 range that I should be looking at?

[sticks1839]

Try upgrading the 5B fronts to 5Ts and downgrade the surrounds to 4Bs, maybe even a small step down on the sub depending on how big your room is. Unless you listen to a lot of multi-channel music (SACD, DVD-Audio), you won't miss much by using 4Bs as surrounds (most surround effects are higher frequency anyway) and the 5Ts can help make up for the subwoofer downgrade.

For $50 more than the 5B Harmony HD, you can put together a custom system consisting of 5T fronts, 5C center, 4B surrounds, and an 8D sub to round it out. This is what I plan to order next week.

[stepyourgameup]

I own Aperions but others worth mentioning are Monitor Audio silver series, SVS and Axiom.

[minimalist]

Thanks Sticks. Do you think the 8 inch sub in combination with the towers will get own to the low frequencies as well as the dual 10 sub? My rooms is rather small with wood floors and conventional foundations (about 11x15 feet)

[minimalist]

Thanks Sticks. Do you think the 8 inch sub in combination with the towers will get own to the low frequencies as well as the dual 10 sub? My rooms is rather small with wood floors and conventional foundations (about 11x15 feet)

[minimalist]

Stepyourgameup. SVS is definitely in the running. I'll check out Monitor Audio and Axiom. Thanks.

[minimalist]

Sticks 1839,

What do you think about leaving the dual 10 inch sub and upgrading the fronts to 6B's (single 6" drivers) instead of 6T's (dual 6 inch)? If I downgrade the surrounds to 4B's the resulting system would still only be 50 dollars more than the matched system I started with. What would be the advantage of the dual 6" towers and the dual 8" sub over this system?

[tonyoramos1]

Steve:

I read your latest blog on HT speaker buying tips. I take issue with the particular advice you gave on allocating a large budget to a center speaker; in fact, i have found that removing a center speaker entirely creates a sense of space in the sound reproduction by distributing voices to the left and right speakers which are ideally at 60 degrees.

Gary Reber of Widescreen Review first proposed this approach to me, under the advisement that the sounds will be less centrally positioned for viewers not in the sweet spot.

I do not find this to be a downside: the increase in immersion by spreading dialogue to L / R channels is worth the sacrifice to the other listeners, b/c as Gary points out, the majority of listeners in a given home do not appreciate the experience as much as the purchaser.

-Anthony Ramos

[soundman45]

I agree. Especially in smaller listening environments the center speaker doesn't really enhance the listening experience.

[btbluesky]

Yes. Never like center channel at all. Good pair of bookshelf can already create the soundstage at precisely center for dialogs.
Using a pair of ascend sierra-1. Best money I ever spent, use it for music, movies...even games.

[wmclover]

Your assumption that one should buy from the same manufacturer suggests to me that I should buy the best matched set of 5 speakers from the same manufacturer I you can afford. You have to explain why it would make sense to buy the top of the line center speaker and sub-woofer from the same manufacture and skimp on the remaining speakers. My matched set sounds a lot better than my older high quality left and right speakers and a different high quality set of surround sound speakers from different manufacturers. A mismatched set from the same manufacturer seems a weird goal.

My Yamaha AVR HTR-5280 selects the left, right center and sub-woofer for music (jazz, rock,etc.). Do you believe I would get better sound for music if I selected "PCM stereo 96k" which plays only 2
channel stereo? My AVR was Yamaha's one of Yamaha's top AVR's at the time I bought it and probably has better specs than the newer inexpensive AVRs such as the Pioneer 1019A, but will not play the newer more advanced Dolby digital formats, My room will not visually accept a 6th and 7th speaker. Will I get better sound for movies or music if I buy a new AVR? Music?
If one has a good speaker system do you recommend that they always mute the TV speakers? I bought a 50" HD Panasonic industrial plasma monitor and I personally can't see why you buy a TV if you have a good sound system.

[John72953]

I've been enjoying 2.0 HT for over 30 years and only recently (last 2 years) expanded into 5.0. The sub will come later as the budget allows. A stereo HT setup, provided your fronts are of decent quality, is nothing to snub one's nose at, as it still delivers a powerful punch and a quite satisfactory experience. I say, instead of blowing your entire $1,000 or $2,000 budget on a complete 5.1 setup, think about buying your speakers with quality in mind and look at a 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 or 3.1 system first. You can always add good surrounds and rear surrounds with next years audio budget.

2.0 HT rocks!

[MongooseProXC]

I read in an audiophile magazine, over 10 years ago, that speaker choice has the least affect on sound quailty than any part of the sound system. The amplifier and the source actually account for well over 95% of the quality. I believe the same theory holds true today. Personally, I have had many different dirt cheap speakers sound brilliant. I feel that investing on a lot of money for expensive speakers is a waste unless you are looking for the visual appeal of a nice cabinet. For example, do you think Bose speakers better than any other satillite speaker because they cost more? Any thoughts?

[stepyourgameup]

No, Blows speakers are not better. But I do think that better quality speakers are worth the money, especially since speakers will last you a long time.

[AdamB5000]

Mongoose,

The first point to address is that Bose is the most overpriced, cheaply made product you'll find in almost any industry. Run some google searches and you'll find a lot about it. They are in the marketing business, not the speaker business.

Secondly, I disagree that the source and amplification have 95% to do with audio quality. The physical speaker is what is actually physically making the sound. I'd argue that the speaker is the most important component in a theater. What's better is speakers aren't quickly outdated with new technology - something source players and pre/pros or receivers suffer from. A really good sounding speaker will continue to sound great 15 years later and the technology will be virtually identical.

If I put together a home theater (for music or movies or both) and had a budget of $5k, I'd quickly spend over 1/2 my money on a nice set of speakers and sub. The remaining $2,500 can be spent on a pretty nice receiver and blu-ray player or any other device you may want.

My personal speaker/sub setup ran ~$1,200, while my receiver cost $500 and my dvd player $200. Projector was $760 (used). All the components were new around 2002. Still pumping hard. :)

[pubmat]

I do agree that the amp and source components are vastly underrated when judging sound quality, but I'm not sure if it occupies 95% of the equation. It may very well be the majority of the sound, so I disagree with Adamb5000 on his points. While speakers can have a huge effect on the way a systems SOUNDS overall, (bright, recessed, bass quantity, etc.) I think its the electronics, and just as importantly, HOW THEY MATCH THE SPEAKERS, that make a system sound good or poor. I read a review not long ago of the Lexicon RV8 home theater receiver--the reviewer initially drove an expensive Linn speaker set, getting the predictably good results. Later, he connected a set of low-end Polk speakers-- just to see how they would sound--and was astonished at how they suddenly were transformed into speakers sounding many more times their price--revealing, transparent, huge soundstage, etc. Just a thought.

[TommyKPdx]

Back when the best source was mechanical (turntable), it may have made some sense to spend as much money on the source as the speakers. At the same time, some of the power amplifiers out there may have suffered from rather unmusical deficiencies such as crossover distortion or near-instability with certain loads. Nowadays it is possible to make a very high quality CD player for very little, because of advances in technology that have benefited from cost reductions associated with Moore's law. And high-feedback solid-state amplifier design is well understood, to the point of their becoming a commodity item. However, the economics of loudspeakers have not changed. They still require large quantities of expensive material for the box; they still need several drivers and a crossover; they need to be individually tested to weed out units with sonic problems; and so on.

The result is that the transition point between the region in which quality improves strongly as a function of price and the region in which quality improves much more slowly (given a particular feature set) is at a far higher price for loudspeakers than it is for other components. Although opinions would legitimately vary on where that point is, I'd suggest it's somewhere around $100 for a CD player, and maybe $200 for a stereo amplifier, but between $500 and $1000 for a pair of speakers, if not more.

[Mark H]

Audiogon.com Baby best used stereo equipment on the web I got a 6,000.00 Krell surround processor for 500.00 bucks used and 6yrs old of course but I dont need the new sound formats so perfect for me.

[Starfires]

From what I heard (and have advised others!) the center should match the fronts in size and timbre as much as possible. Then, if you're going to get into multi-channel music, your surrounds should match the fronts as much as possible too. This all falls through a bit for me as my center is smaller than the fronts, designed to fit in the AV rack as it is and my surrounds are smaller (but still pretty substantial bookshelfs. Fortunately for me a good sub brings it all together.

But reading this article and I am thinking that a great center and sub may well be good for movies, letting the fronts work as surrounds. The problem is such a system is going to be pretty much unusable for music unless you like the center approach (something Prologic IIx Music was designed to get over). Also where do you put this massive center- on the floor? I'm not sure it could work for me, especially with the all-important wife acceptance factor! A more attractive idea is the one in the comments of cutting out the center completely- for me that would emphasise my tower fronts which could be perfect- so I'll be trying it out tonight for sure.

As for amplification/source- I can only say that with my elcheapo desktop speaker when I added a miniature preamp to the mix (really designed for headphones, but I connect it to the speakers too), the difference really is night and day. Way more mids, a much more vibrant sound. It is one thing that makes me want to upgrade my reciever all the more.

[cjguest]

There has been quite a debate regarding this post on Friendfeed's Audiophile Group. My comment when I posted this to Friendfeed was: Helpful guidelines to use if you're looking for some new speakers, although 30% of budget for center speaker only seems too high. I think that the front left and right speakers should have a bigger budget.

The rest of the debate is here: http://friendfeed.com/audiophile

[ShadowIce012]

Simple one... get rid of the centre channel. Put the mone into a good set of fronts (that are time coherent). Your dialoge will be anchored onto the screen and the spacial sound will be far better than listening to 80% of our sound through a single speaker. Properly set up fronts will be far better than relying on a cener channel

[ANTSCNET]

I do some A/V Concierge work on the side, and when I spec out a system, I usually reserve 40-50% of the budget for speakers, with the next biggest chunk going to the Display and somewhat less to the Receiver or Tuner/Amplifier. Whatever is left buys a good quality Blu-Ray Player or or other desired signal source, as well as the cables and any stands/mounts I need.

A lot of the systems I spec out are less for audiophiles and more for average consumers who want a great system that will be a step up from a HTIB. As such, they are usually more interested in the flexibility of the system to do multiple jobs well, rather than calibrating the system to one particular use (i.e., either Music or Movies). Consequently, out of that 40-50% I spend on speakers, the majority is spent on the subwoofer, center and fronts. Whatever is leftover goes towards surrounds that best match the rest.

[wingfeather]

I think one of the most overlooked component in any HT or stereo setup is the listening room. Speaker placement, listening distance, room size and acoustics, these all contribute to sonic characteristics that greatly influence your musical experience. I believe properly setup speakers will sound equally well in both HT and music applications. Voice your speakers to the environment they are in, in other words listen to your speakers and not your room. Experiment over time with placement and different sources and you may be surprised with the results. We all don't live in anachoic chambers. Just my two cents. Thanks Jeff

[hk2000]

Absolutely. I have a $1400 /pair NHT speakers in my main HT room (along with center/surround and sub). and I have a $300/pair bookshelf speakers along with a cheap (~$450) sub in the bedroom. the bedroom system consisting of cheaper components all around sounds 10 times better than the main system. my HT room is squarish, with lots of contemporary furniture (glass, alumin. ..etc) - the room contributes A LOT MORE to the SQ than any other component.

[ShadowIce012]

When searching for my main speakers I had this question all the time.... do you mostly watch Movies... or listen to music?
My answer to that is... I want speakers that will faithfully reproduce the signal that it gets. It doesn't care if the source is a movie or music. Does it do its job or doesn't it.
The only speakers I would ever consider are ones that actually are time coherent. That immediately cuts out a lot of choices.
I sure don't want speakers that sound like the local theatre. Our systems at home can and should sound a lot better.

[Scarytiger]

I say if you can afford it, buy a Corvette. If not, buy the Kia. Opinons are like aholes. Personally, I would like to spend $3000 on speakers and a subwoofer, but unfortunately, I can't justify that. I do believe that speakers and their placement should be the main focus and everything else should be built around that. Power and processing are one thing, but the end result comes from the speakers.