My system consists of 532LR as fronts, 533VAC center, and 422LR surrounds. I have an Outlaw LFM2 sub. My receiver is a Marantz SR5002. I have the crossover on the sub defeated, so I control it at the receiver. I can only choose one crossover for all speakers. The receiver does not have independant crossover settings as my previous Harman Kardon did. I know the correct crossover for the 532 and 533 is 80Hz. But I also know the correct crossover for the 422's is 100Hz. I can only choose 80 or 100 in the receiver. Either one would be  a compromise. Which one would you choose?

JR,

Great setup!  I had the same thing. I think you did the right thing in defeating the crossover on the sub.  Anyway, with that setup I had my crossover set to 80hz for all speakers.  I didn't notice any  problems with the 422's, even when listening to multichannel music.  I think you will get better integration with you sub that way to. 

Be curious to see what others have done with similar setups?

 Dan,

   Thanks for the advice. By the way, did you do alot of high volume listening? I think going at 80Hz would better utilize the 532LR and 533VAC. So long as the 422's  were not damaged by the lower frequencies. I am also very courious to what others have done. I know this is a popular setup. I am thinking of upgrading to the new line. I have only had my speakers a couple weeks. I have a couple weeks to decide.

  

 

Hey guys,

I have a similar situation with my current Yamaha AVR.  There is a single crossover setting for all speakers marked small.  I have it set the 80 Hz.  At first I was a little concerned about the single crossover setting.  But I previously tested an Onkyo 705 that allowed multiple crossovers for each of the speakers.  After experimenting several weeks with the crossover settings of the Onkyo (before exchanging the receiver for the Yamaha), ironically enough I found all speakers set to 80 Hz worked the best.  Of course, every room layout, speaker configuration, etc. changes the equation slightly, but it was relieving to know that I enjoyed the sound equally at slightly difference crossover settings.

---

Speakers: Aperion 6T, 6C, 5DB, 6IC, Bravus 10Dx2
Monitor: JVC RS20U front projector with Stewart Velux 100" screen
Receiver: Yamaha RX-V1800
Blu-ray: Yamaha BD-S2900
Amplifier: Emotiva UPA-7
Conditioner: Panamax M5300PM

JR,

I don't do much high volume listening, but when raised to high volumes the new 5 series are golden.  I like to sit on my couch and listen to music in mutlichannel 5.1stereo.  In this mode I get a beautiful 3-d soundstage, the speakers just disapear.  In multichannel surround mode I don't feel the need to raise the volume to higher levels.

Do you notice any harshness in the upper frequencies when you turn your 532's up?  If so the new 5 series will clear that right up. 

Dan.

    At moderate sound levels and below, and for general home theater listening, at any volume, this is a great setup. However, for serious music listening at serious volumes, the 532 leaves much to be desired. The 632LR is a much superior speaker. Even much better than the new improved 5 series. It only stands to reason. It is a much bigger speaker. I am new to home theater, only been in it a couple of years. But have to admit I am hooked. I recently purchased an sr5002 marantz receiver. Boy did it sound great for a couple days. Then I started thinking to myself that if the 5002 sounds this good for $700, then the 7002 for $1200 would really knock my socks off.  I have a 60 day upgrade option on the receiver, so  I  called the salesman at the Gramophone in Birmingham,  Mi, where I bought the Marantz. I explained to him I was thinking about upgrading my receiver. He set me straight. He told me I had plenty enough receiver. An upgrade wouldn't solve my problem. He explained to me that a $300 receiver matched up to a $1000 set of speakers, would sound pretty damn good. But on the other hand a $300 set of speakers matched up to a $1000 receiver would not sound nearly as good. Especially bookshelves with 5.25" woofers. He said always buy the best speakers you can afford, and build from there. Don't get me wrong . The 532's probably sound as good as any  $200 12" bookshelf speaker on the market. But that's all they are. You get what you pay for.

To be quite honest, these 5B's sound pretty awesome with a high quality source in 2.1 channel stereo.  I have a set of JBL studio series in the basement.  12" woofers, 5"midrange and tweets and the sound of these 5B's trump the JBL's...The JBL's sound a little tinny and the vocals aren't as naturual and open.  Sure they pump out more bass, but can't touch these 5B's in overall depth and clarity.  In this case the $225 speaker beats the $400 massive floorstander.  So, I'm not sure we can say size always matters. 

So you believe the 632's will sound much better than the new 5B's if both were paired with a subwoofer and crossed over at 80hz?  I'm really interested in this.  Sure the 632's will give you more midbass but will still have that harshnes present when the volume is turned up.  The 5B's on the other hand will be much, much smoother in the upper frequencies.  I seriously debated whether I should go 5B's or 632's but thought that since I was crossing over @ 80 and had a pretty nice sub that I would go for improved upper frequency response. As far as soundstage goes I'm not sure.  The tweeter on the 5B will open things up on the high end but the 632's will extend the lower frequencies more. Is the cleaner, clearer tweeter or the extra 1" of midbass more important?  when i was really into car audio I always preferred a 5 1/4" midrange the 6 1/2"  in my components becuase they didn't sound as bassy in the vocals, but then again you don't have as much space to fill in a car.    So what is the best way to go for serious two channel listening, having a crossover at 80hz and a subwoofer, the5B's or 632's?  Not that I'm to concerned as I prefer the sound of multichannel, but just good info for everyone to debate and learn from.

 To ramble on a bit more, llistening to my system in multichannel stereo mode for music creates a far superior soundstage than any two speakers that I have heard at a high end electronics store.  And believe me I used to take monthly visits to Almas Hi Fi in Michigan asking to listen to the most expensive pair they got.  I always believed the sum of the parts in a  correclty calibrated5.1 setup, especially with quality components, is far superior to any two channel confirguration you can throw out there.  I invite anyone to come over and listen to my new 5.1 Aperion system.  You will be surrounded in a beautiful soundstage filled with crystal clear musical enjoyment.  Sounds better than my dads 2.1 channnel system that he has invested thousands and thousands on which features Adcom Amps, a pair of 1990 M&K's sattelites and a M&K dual Drive 15" sub...Ok, he does get a bit more low end then I do, but his soundstage isn't close.  So I say 5b's, 5c, 422's crossed over at 80hz and a 300 watt velodyne playing in multichannel trump a pair of 632's and a sub playing in 2.1 channel crossed over at 60-80hz.

Anyway, back to the original question...5B's or 632's for serious two channel musical listening, paired with a sub and crossed over at 80HZ.. 

Comments Please!

Update:

UPDATE:  Spoke with Jason over at Aperion and he stated the differences between the 632 and the 5B were really only apparent in the BASS deparment.  He believes the soundstage of the 5B rivals that of the 632.  He preffered the new tweeter and  recommended that I stick with the new stuff becuase the new 4B's are a considerable upgrade over the 422's and the 5C sounds better than the 533VAC. The overall quality of this setup is a significant improvement over the old series.  Hope this helps someone make a more informed decision.
 

Thanks,

Dan.

Dan, your quote,

 

“So I say 5b's, 5c, 422's crossed over at 80hz and a 300 watt velodyne playing in multichannel trump a pair of 632's and a sub playing in 2.1 channel crossed over at 60-80hz.”

 

Trump the 632’s how? You are saying that the (5B) 5.1 mulit-channel setup will provide a better surround sound field and listening environment than the (632) 2.1 stereo channel setup? Now that is provocative.

 

I have both the 532’s and 632’s as front mains driven by separate amps. The 532’s are brighter than the 632’s although not harsh IMO they can easily be tuned with a competent AVR’s equalizer to adjust to my listening preference.

 

Also, do you equate harsh and bright in the realm of speakers to be similar entities?

 

Jack

 

Hey Jack,

Sorry, but I was just rambling on a bit and one can never be to careful when one rambles...Just like one can never be too careful when it comes to confetti.  At the exact moment in time that i was writing that post i was thinking about a dicussion i had with a gentleman that said 2.1 channel music was far superior than 5.1 multichannel music.  And I was thinking wait a minute, my 5.1 setup sounds pretty darn good.  Then I was thinking about the post before stating that a pair of 632's were much better than a pair of 5B's and I really just wanted to say that i love the way my stuff sounds even compared to my fathers heavily invested 2.1 system, running high quality pre-amps, EQ's, etc...  So yah, put me down as a 5.1 channel music lover.  See you got me rambling again. 

Hi Dan,

I have posted here before how I like the5.1 multi-channel sound, and I also prefer it to 2.1 channel.

Some purists will say the only way to listen to music is in stereo. This may be true for some, but I didn’t buy a 7.1 setup just to listen in stereo although I can switch to stereo just to compare and then select my preference.

Even though I have a 7.1 setup 5.1 multi-channel sounds better for some sources than many of the simulated sound fields.

I compose posts in Word so I can review/alter before I post.

Jack

I have a DVD-Audio and SACD player, as well as a Denon digital preamp that offers "5 channel stereo".
The multi-channel mixes on the DVD-A and SACD (and DTS CDs) are very cool to hear, but, for whatever reason, 2.1 sounds more natural over the "5 channel stereo" setting.
Perhaps because we have heard music in stereo for decades, and the fact that stereo albums are mixed in stereo - not considering other modes of playback.
I believe 5.1 playback of a stereo source adds all kinds of phase problems, 7.1 even worse.  When the surrounding speakers are of a matched set, sure, the soundfield can probably be more engaging, but still, the configuration of the speakers, different distances, positions, and angles, more is probably less as far as program accuracy is concerned.
When I am "in" the center soundfield, I prefer 2.1, in that it sounds more accurate.  When I am "out" of the soundfield, I'll go ahead and do 5.1 just so the room gets filled with the music going everywhere.

Just my 2 cents worth...  Thanks for "listening"...

---

JTMusic