Full range rear speakers

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

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

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

"Multi-poop", that is a good one ;-) Haven't heard it stated that way before, ROFLMAO

All I was saying was that the bass of the Osprey will be more musical simply because it was designed to be so (as compared to the HSU).

In a sense you are correct, that the rears are only for re-creation of the venue. However, this is not always the case as some recordings do have instrument/voice sent to the rear channels (whether this is a good or bad thing is a topic for another thread ;-] )

Your questions are good ones, but this is the deal: It takes a MUCH better transducer to faithfully create the harmonics, tonal reverberations, string slide, etc. of a cello (just an example), than it does to reproduce a big boom from a soundtrack (unless that "boom" is from an orchestral source). These are just my opinions, but when a transducer is described as "musical", it simply means that it is more capable of faster transients, dynamics, and transparency. A "musical" speaker is typically much more linear across the entire frequency spectrum than a non-musical speaker.

I don't care for Dipoles/Bipoles either, just wanted to make sure your were aware that they are available (if you wanted to go that route).

Best Regards...Mike - Father & Son Audio

Marty,

I don't think it is completely wasted, but if you are looking at 100% HT, I personally wouldn't spend the extra money. I will put it this way: Speakers designed for "music" sound great with HT applications, but speakers designed purely for the purpose of HT, will usually not do that well with music. Make sense?

Regards...Mike - Father & Son Audio

I would DEFINITELY agree with Def Tech being for theater (although they aren't that great for that purpose either). They are terrible for music (my opinion, so be nice). The older NHT line (the speakers designed by Ken Kantor) are VERY good for both HT and music (VT-2,2.5i, 2.9, and 3.3 specifically). They can tend to be bright and in your face though if you don't run them with the proper electronics.

Regards...Mike - Father & Son Audio