FXI A6 --unless you guys think I have better option

searay40dad

Need some expert opinions please! Will pull the string on a new pair of FXI A6s this week while Polk is offering free set of $299 Atrium5's. $500/free shipping/no tax/plus the Atriums seem like decent deal.

Planning to mount on rear wall, approx 15 ft behind seating area. About 30' from front soundstage. Best i can do--no side wall mounting possible. Guess I will run bi-pole.

Questions:
1) agree with the fxi a6 plan...or should i get a set of rti a7s/rti10's? or other?
2) do I let my NAD T755 AVR (~100w cont/channel) power them, or get another amp--like another C270/C272 two-channel? NAD T755 dynamic power doubles I think and fxi a6 ratings are somethng like 50-150W. Probably ok with the 755 arent I?

appreciate any advice thrown my way.

mystik610

For home theater, using towers as surrounds is a little wasteful IMO...the FXi A6 arguably is wasteful as well.

The advantage of a having a large tower and larger mid-bass drivers is to allow them to play with more authority in the lower frequencies....but really you don't have a whole lot of low frequency material coming from the surrounds. The surrounds are meant to deliver the more directional 'surround' effects...and most of this occurs in the upper-middle, and higher-frequencies.

For multi-channel music, using a tower as your surrounds would be worth doing, but not for home theater.

Dipole surrounds are ideal in situations where you have a wide listening area with off-axis seating positions, as dipole surrounds will diffuse the surround effects around the room so they sound more open, and less directional. This is in contrast to monopole surrounds which, when you're sitting too far or too close to one, are more localizable. Placement is more important with a monopole, and less important with a dipole, making a dipole easier to work with if you have a less than ideal shaped listening area.

The downside to dipoles is that by nature, they are less directional, which is a good and a bad thing. On occasions where surround effects are supposed to be very directional (ie a bullet flying past the screen), the effect is diffused across the room and doesn't sound as precise. The upside is that the surround effects will sound much fuller and more convincing.

searay40dad

Thanks mystik, I think I follow you. I am only only considering this "upgrade" for HT, not for music. With that being said, sounds as though dipole surrounds are my best bet to achieve the fuller and more convincing surround effects--using your words which I like and agree with.

But, I am curious why you say the FXI A6 is wasteful. do you basically mean too much speaker for my room (30x30+)? Polk tells me fxi a6 are right match for 12s, csi5, 505 set-up. specs seem in line and, in general, isn't bigger better?

kevhed72

I don't think those would we overkill in a room that size.
Also, your AVR should be fine to power the surrounds. If you wanted an amp to power anything, look at your fronts and center first IMO. I current have a 100wpc rrunning my fronts, but will eventually move that amp to the center channel just because so much is generated from the center.

mystik610

searay40dad wrote: »

Thanks mystik, I think I follow you. I am only only considering this "upgrade" for HT, not for music. With that being said, sounds as though dipole surrounds are my best bet to achieve the fuller and more convincing surround effects--using your words which I like and agree with.

But, I am curious why you say the FXI A6 is wasteful. do you basically mean too much speaker for my room (30x30+)? Polk tells me fxi a6 are right match for 12s, csi5, 505 set-up. specs seem in line and, in general, isn't bigger better?

I've not heard the FXi A6 or the FXi5 so I can't speak from experience...but I did research the benfits of going from the FXi A4/FXi3 to the FXi A6/A5. Most say there isn't much difference between the two. It makes sense IMO, as most of the surround material will be produced by the tweeters.

What you're really paying for in the FXi A6 is a single, larger mid-bass driver (this is contrast to other dipole speakers which have two tweeters and two mid-bass drivers). The dipole effect will be produced by running the two tweeters out of phase.

Generally bigger is better...given that you need the speakers to dip down into the lower frequencies. Its far less important in surround speakers, as there isn't a whole lot of low frequency material in the surround channels. The FXi A4 actually shares the same drivers as the RTi12, so voice-matching shouldn't be the issue.

searay40dad

Well, you've convinced me surrounds are best approach for my HT set-up. I think I'll go ahead and pull the trigger on the fxi a6's although I do see your point about fxi a4's being ample for less money ($300-$350 range I think).

My rationale is, I have a need (ok, an ubsubstantiated want truth be told) for the Atrium5 for my boat. Since Polk is throwing a set of Atriums in "free" if I spend over $499, I'm looking at A6s for a tad over $500 and getting the Atriums. I know I could probably find the A6s cheaper than $500 but to get the Atrium deal, has to be with Polk authorized retailer.

I'm rationalizing this as killing two birds with one stone I guess. My wife will be absolutley thrilled with my logic yet again. Although, I will blame it on this forum and you fine folks.

kevhed, haven't thought about amp'g the center too much since HFs dont really need alot of power to drive. My NAD AVR has some pretty strong reserve capacity so I think i'm easily getting plenty of clean power near the top end of the CSI5's power handling specs. I'm also putting over 300W continuous into each main's LFs alone due to a dedicated (& bridged) amp for each main. I drive the mains HFs with the NAD AVR.

But, I wouldn't have a problem adding another amp if I was to be convinced. As Tim the Tool Man used to say "arrrh, more power...ho, hoh, ho ho" ...or something like that.

kevhed72

searay40dad wrote: »

kevhed, haven't thought about amp'g the center too much since HFs dont really need alot of power to drive. My NAD AVR has some pretty strong reserve capacity so I think i'm easily getting plenty of clean power near the top end of the CSI5's power handling specs. I'm also putting over 300W continuous into each main's LFs alone due to a dedicated (& bridged) amp for each main. I drive the mains HFs with the NAD AVR.
.

My AVR is fine to power my center also, just my theory is that a seperate amp for the center will result in clearer, crisper dialog and better sounding effects. Thus, my theory has helped rationlize my behavior (in my mind) to purchase the 2nd amp. Funny how these theories and rationalizations lead to buying more stuff. I just picked up an Adcom 555ii for a song yesterday, so I'll put the theory to test. This amp wasn't my first choice for 2-channel use , but I couldn't pass on the price and it is an upgrade over the 545ii for the fronts. As far as the A6s go, I didn't want to end up second-guessing myself down the line vs. the A4's as a built my system up....